The Wages of Sin is DEATH

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Oh wow, I thought you said English is not my first language. A murder is simply the plural referent for crows. A pride of lions, a pack of wolves, a pride of lions...a murder of crows. Simple English.

You're still a mouse that's trying to roar, but can only appear to be a grasshopper screaming at a skyscraper.

 

[Aletheiophile]

You're still a mouse that's trying to roar, but can only appear to be a grasshopper screaming at a skyscraper.

You go ahead and think that.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

I once had a "Murder of Lovebirds." I had to give them up when I moved.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Thanks for explaining. I think I'm still having trouble understanding the different ways you're using it though.
What's the difference between articular sin and anarthrous sin?

Also, I was reading further on and saw this.

Do you think God takes that initial action (monergism) with everyone?

I would ask why didn't God count it sin when Job presumed he could make his case before God from his own understanding of righteousness?

What do you think allowed Adam to sin?

Vanity.

What is the difference between Adam prior to the fall and us?

Adam was the first man presented with a commandment.

No other difference as far as being subjected to vanity, which was the reason he could not keep the command.

God did not subject us to vanity because Adam sinned.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

You go ahead and think that.

I already thought that and decided to unthink it due to it being totally exhausting speaking to posters like PPS and yourself. Do you think you know what you're talking about? So do I.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Let's get back to the theme of this thread, shall we?

 

[kmoney]

yes, Jesus became the singular anarthrous sin of all mankind. Every qualitative characteristic and dysfunctional activity of the inward heart and mind that could or did ever manifest outwardly in conduct as acting and action. But that is only the anarthrous of the articular, which is the condition itself (not just its various and near-infinite qualities, etc.

What does it mean for Jesus to become that?
And what do you think that means for us?

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

What does it mean for Jesus to become that?
And what do you think that means for us?

Yer bought with a price and now indebted.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

What does it mean for Jesus to become that?

He became it in the sense of being made the scapegoat, with every inner quality, characteristic, and dysfunctional activity OF the sin condition of all mankind for all ages placed upon Him to suffer outside the gate.

And what do you think that means for us?

It's the only way faith includes repentance of sin (singular articular). The condition as our state of being. The void that is in the nature of our core being and in our members as that which brings forth that inward deficiency into action that is neither the inner character nor the outer conduct of God's righteous standard for both.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

What does it mean for Jesus to become that?
And what do you think that means for us?

Man, he sure finds it of necessity to use those $50.00 words, doesn't he? He's got to have one GIGANTIC inferiority complex? Of course, I'm speaking about PPS.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

I think PPS perceives himself to be an "English Professor" at a highly prestigious University? You'll notice I used the word "thinks?"

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

I don't trust a guy who states he's highly intelligent, yet lacks "WIT." Somethings wrong?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

The Bible speaks of the wages of sin being death. Which death do you think it's talking about, Spiritual, physical or both?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Adam sinned and one of his punishments was physical death. On the other hand, because we are sinners we are considered Spiritually dead. So, which death (or both) was Romans 6:23 speaking of?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Please don't be long-winded and use humongous words that everybody has to Google.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Everyone ought to have the common courtesy of using simple English so everybody knows what you're talking about, instantly. If you keep your posts at a High School level, most will comprehend what you're trying to convey.

Otherwise, you're just showing off.

 

[Sonnet]

But the will is the intention. The etymology is from the Latin, meaning to stretch forth a line "in tension" toward the object as the subject of the mind.

An unrenewed mind cannot stretch forth the will to THE object as subject. THE object is God's hypostasis spoken forth. Faith must be given to us, just as repentance must be granted. This is the necessary Monergism of God's eternality for us to be changed. We cannot change the CONDITION of our hearts and minds; only the directive of the mind to apply the will. Monergism must enable the Synergism by filling the void that is the sin condition and the dysfunction that is "evil".

Aren't you implying an assumption that salvific 'faith' is, in some way, not morally neutral - that it somehow 'good'. If faith is 'the confidence of things hoped for and the assurance of things unseen', then doing so (having this confidence and assurance) is morally neutral.

Without the initating function of Monergism, man would be helpless. But man was originally created in God's image, so this Monergistic restoration enables the Synergism for man to be empowered to become the sons of God and bring forth imputed righteousness from within the translated inner man to be accomplished by the members as the outer man.

It's not an either-or dichotomy, but it requires Monergism to resurrect the original Synergism of man that was idled and disabled my spiritual death and sin in Eden. Man can never cooperate with God unto righteousness without the initiative of Monergism.

John 12:32

Calvinists over-emphasize God's Monergism to the point of negating man's responsibllity that accompanies the privilege of everlasting life in Christ. This can deny our resurrection in a practical sense.

Arminians over-emphasize man's Synergism as though it was also initiative rather than being cooperation after regeneration and resurrection within. This can deny God's sovereignty.

It's either an inordinant focus on the inner man or on the outer man. Functionally for us, it's sequential. Actually for God, it's simultaneous in a timeless sense. For us there is an Ordo Salutis (order of salvation). We're in created time and space. For God there is no Ordo Salutis; because He is timeless and not spatially constrained or contained.

Okay - and here lies the mystery - the chicken and egg scenario that no one seems capable of explaining.


Yes. Anarthrous nouns aren't another noun. They are the quality, character, and activity (functionality) of the articular noun.

The sin (articular singular) is the condition. Sin (anarthrous singular) is each individual inner qualitative characteristic and dysfunctional activity of that condition. Same condition. Same noun. Different reference. One is merely and specifically the inner condition. The other is every facet of that inner condition. (Plural articular is any/all of the inner qualitative characteristics and dysfunctional activities of the sin condition. None of this is outward acting or action as behavior... YET.)

If 'each individual inner qualitative characteristic and dysfunctional activity' is not 'outward acting' - what exactly is it?

One cannot quantify something that is qualitative. English speakers have a really difficult time with this. We quantify everything.

Once God Monergistically initiates the mechanical processes of our new creation reality in this still-fallen cosmos, then His Monergism is delegated to us AS our Synergism. Our inheritance literally includes His Monergism AS our Synergism. They're not blended or distinguishable in any manner. Not "glued" together like two boards. Not shuffled together like a deck of cards. Not blended like in a cuisinart.

We become joined to the God and Father by being hypostatically translated into Christ. We have access BY faith into the grace in which we stand. Our Synergism is the gift of His Monergism being delegated to us in a functional sense while we yet physically live.

But to speak of the merging of monergism and synergism does not uncover the mystery - it's still a mystery is it not?

 

[Sonnet]

My wife knows what I know. She's a linguist (fluent in 6 languages), which is how we met. She knows and understands the truth, as do all those I disciple on a weekly basis. They all grieve for you and many others, because they all came out of the same nebulous nothingness of false autonomy and pride that you are in.

She and they are all true Believers, knowing and understanding the Gospel of Paul entrusted to him by God.

Dispensationalists have completely misrepresented Paul, and their focus is not even Christocentric. Everything is about "you", so you presume others are all about themselves.

Love abounds in knowledge (epignosis). Love works faith. Faith is a synonym for epignosis. Your false knowledge is not the Logos of God by a mind renewed in the spirit. Yours is just another false doctrine of men, unreconciled to the truth.

I feel sorry for YOUR wife, and for all the spouses of all other Dispo heretics, along with everyone else they ever know or meet. You are being made twofold the child of hell. In this physical life. And you feign love toward me while making posts like this.

Why do you consider dispensationalism in error?

 

[Sonnet]

No, it's to maintain the actual meaning of the text in the face of its perversion by nominal and arrogant Englishizers who believe their autonomous opinions trump every detail of grammar they don't understand and pervert.

You're a heretic of heretics, and you literally can't know it because you've presumed to know what scripture means from your English perspective.

You are saying that all the current english translation are misleading? Really?

 

[Sonnet]

Imputed by whom?

I say by the Son, who tested Abraham and found that his Father the most high God had dealt it to him.

What was Abraham's part, would you say?