InvoSpec

by Hiram R. Diaz III Tying Everything Together The last section of this study focused on Biblical semiotics. What is semiotics? One source defines it this way –  The theory and study of signs and symbols, especially as elements of language or other systems of communication, and comprising semantics, syntactics, and pragmatics.( Source ) In Scripture we see that there are many different symbolic codes, and that these symbolic codes are hierarchically related. Animals and humans have the capacity to employ symbolic codes to communicate with one another and God. However, humans have the capacity to construct new symbolic codes that help facilitate the transmission of meaning from person to person. In the case of infants, we see that their cries communicate a multitude of requests to their mother and father, as well as other caretakers. Infants, in other words, communicate meaning via the only symbolic code they can manipulate with a large degree of variation – the noises they make with th

by Hiram R. Diaz III This past Lord's Day, I preached on Mark 8:27-38 (here's the link , if you're interested). While I had a general understanding of the text, I didn't grasp some finer nuances of meaning that our English translations don't always bring to light. In particular, I learned that Peter's rebuke of Christ was not harsh or aggressive, but gentle and friendly. Here are some commentators on the verse in question (v. 32b), as well its parallel in Matt 16:22 (I've italicized the key words). Gill's Commentary - ... [Peter] takes Christ aside, and very warmly expostulates with him about what he had said, and chides him for it, and entreats him that he would not think, or talk of such like things (Mark 8:32)   Pulpit Commentary - Either taking him aside, or taking him by the hand or dress - a reverent familiarity permitted by the Lord to his loving apostle. (Matt 16:22)   Geneva Study Bible - Took him by the hand and led him aside, as they used to

by Hiram R. Diaz III Language is the Best Vehicle of Thought, Not the ‘Only’ Vehicle of Thought Continuing on, I need to explain my last points in a little more detail seeing as for many, the confusion about infants and the capacity to even think sinful thoughts comes from a confusion about language and cognition. It is true that language is the highest means of expression we have been given by God, but it is not the case that it is the only means of expression. Scripture teaches us that man has the capacity to receive, interpret, construct, and meaningfully transmit non-linguistic symbols. (By symbols I mean those things which are used to convey meaning (e.g. letters, numbers, hand gestures, etc), and not literary symbols.) In what follows, we will first establish that there are non-linguistic symbols, according to Scripture. Secondly, we will establish there is an objective hierarchy of these symbols, according to Scripture. 1. Non-linguistic Symbols I have italicized the words that

by Hiram R. Diaz III As I scrolled through Facebook, I was reminded of how many professing Christians are still full immersed in the presuppositions and practices of the secular world. I have had discussions with many about the evils of the social justice movement, of the evils and hypocrisy of Black Lives Matter, of the evils of Marxism, of the evils of Critical Race Theory, of how these all contradict the clear teaching of Scripture, and of how their involvement with the social justice movement is evil and destructive. Yet I see them almost every day repeating the same Marxist, Critical Race Theory, Social Justice inspired slogans, formulaic expressions, and falsehoods, while claiming to be Christians. I also see them almost every day refusing to call their beliefs about "white supremacy" and "systemic racism" and "white privilege" into question, despite having been given numerous reasons and opportunities to do so. I love my family in Christ, so this ha

by Hiram R. Diaz III The Law of Transitivity and Scriptural Interpretation In logic, if A is B and B is C, then A is C. This is called the law of transitivity. For A, B, and C we may substitute any logical subject. For example: If Jesus (A) is Yahweh (B), and Yahweh (B) is the One True God (C), then Jesus (A) is the One True God (C). We can apply this law when we read passages like Acts 5:1-4: …a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, and with his wife's knowledge he kept back for himself some of the proceeds and brought only a part of it and laid it at the apostles' feet. But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to man but to God.” In contradiction to heretics

by Hiram R. Diaz III Facebook groups are helpful for many reasons. For instance, Facebook groups allow you to gather demographic information. Is there a group for Reformed Latinos? Yes, there is? Is the group large? Is it small? What percentage of the group is Presbyterian? What percentage is Reformed Baptist/Confessional Particular Baptist? What percentage is particular Baptist? What percentage of the aforementioned divisions of reformed people tolerate heresy? And so on. It was by means of a Facebook group called "Reformed Latinos" that I gained insight into why Marxism has made its way into Reformed camps, at least online. Some time ago, a member made post to remind the group's members that Karl Marx's critique of capitalism was correct. This got a mixed response from the group members, with many ridiculing the original poster for his claim. What struck me, however, was that among those who disagreed with the OP, I found many who debated the claims made by Marx aga

by Hiram R. Diaz III Not too long ago , I offered a logical refutation of the tabula rasa doctrine. Today, I am going to offer a Scriptural refutation of the doctrine. In order to do this, we need to look first at (I.)the ontology of man, and (II.)biblical anthropology. These will not be exhaustive treatments of these two subjects, but will be the foundation of our brief study of the Scripture’s teaching on the mind of man and its content. I. Ontology Materialism assumes that man is ultimately only comprised of physical elements. In this view, the soul/mind is typically though t to be an epiphenomenon of brain activity. This is clearly at odds with the Scriptures, which teach that man is his soul, the body being his instrument/vehicle for the expression of his soul (i.e. his thoughts, beliefs, values, etc ) . Without his body, man can reason, receive information about the physical world, reflect on his past, consider t