This is an icon of God.
This is not.
Posted on 02/28/2010 8:30:39 AM PST by CondoleezzaProtege
John Calvin's 16th century reply to medieval Catholicism's buy-your-way-out-of-purgatory excesses is Evangelicalism's latest success story, complete with an utterly sovereign and micromanaging deity, sinful and puny humanity, and the combination's logical consequence, predestination: the belief that before time's dawn, God decided whom he would save (or not), unaffected by any subsequent human action or decision.
Calvinism, cousin to the Reformation's other pillar, Lutheranism, is a bit less dour than its critics claim: it offers a rock-steady deity who orchestrates absolutely everything, including illness (or home foreclosure!), by a logic we may not understand but don't have to second-guess. Our satisfaction — and our purpose — is fulfilled simply by "glorifying" him. In the 1700s, Puritan preacher Jonathan Edwards invested Calvinism with a rapturous near mysticism. Yet it was soon overtaken in the U.S. by movements like Methodism that were more impressed with human will. Calvinist-descended liberal bodies like the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) discovered other emphases, while Evangelicalism's loss of appetite for rigid doctrine — and the triumph of that friendly, fuzzy Jesus — seemed to relegate hard-core Reformed preaching (Reformed operates as a loose synonym for Calvinist) to a few crotchety Southern churches.
No more. Neo-Calvinist ministers and authors don't operate quite on a Rick Warren scale. But, notes Ted Olsen, a managing editor at Christianity Today, "everyone knows where the energy and the passion are in the Evangelical world" — with the pioneering new-Calvinist John Piper of Minneapolis, Seattle's pugnacious Mark Driscoll and Albert Mohler, head of the Southern Seminary of the huge Southern Baptist Convention. The Calvinist-flavored ESV Study Bible sold out its first printing, and Reformed blogs like Between Two Worlds are among cyber-Christendom's hottest links.
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
Not at all, I'm just wondering.
“Do they have a conscious awareness of God as defined in Romans Chapter 1?”
God has given three witnesses to Himself that Paul writes about in Romans; general revelation in nature and His law written on the hearts of all; special revelation, the Law given to Israel. Each witnesses to God so that all are without excuse. As to infants, the innate selfishness and temper are witnesses to their fallen nature. Try taking a nursing baby from his mother. His response defies the “law written on his heart”.
Justice means that God is no respecter of persons. He has established one way to salvation and reconciliation with Him; Christ Jesus. How can He be just and the justifier of the unborn and the infant in keeping with His righteous nature? As I said before, I think this is in His foreknowledge according to His purpose and plans. “Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions then God knows not only what will actually come to pass (one trusts to salvation) but also, in the case of the unborn or the under-aged child, what would come to pass (that some would trust to salvation) had they been born or lived. Rev. 17:8 says that the names were written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, so God knows those that are His from the foundation of the world.”
Psa 22:9-10, “But thou [art] he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope [when I was] upon my mother’s breasts. I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou [art] my God from my mother’s belly.”
Psa 139:13-16, “For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully [and] wonderfully made: marvellous [are] thy works; and [that] my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, [and] curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all [my members] were written, [which] in continuance were fashioned, when [as yet there was] none of them.”
Isa. 49:1,5, “Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name.”....”And now, saith the LORD that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him,”
Jer. 1:5, “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.”
Sorry, I did not mean that in a personal way...that is actually a fairly common question.
My question really wasn’t regarding their salvation, it was whether or not it was the Holy Spirit that caused them to do good deeds.
The same can be said of cats or dogs. Are they doomed to hell by their nature? Is the law of God written on their feline or canine hearts?
I am not arguing that infants do not have a fallen nature. I am arguing from Romans I that they have an "excuse" and hence I believe they are covered by grace if they die before they have considered the glory of Creation.
To whom much is given much shall be required. What can we say about those to whom nothing is given? Could it be that God has given to some "nothing" as a means of saving grace? Can you rule THAT out?
This is an icon of God.
This is not.
No, a faithful exercise of love for all believers. How did you get the above from what I said??? :)
From the points that the Commission is commanded, along with the admission that the Gospel does not apply to, or rather affect the salvation of the Reformed reprobate.
The Great Commission was given to the disciples in a micro sense, but by Biblical extension it was given to all believers. Certainly Catholicism recognizes that Biblical commands apply to us today even though they were not technically given to us since we were not physically present when the command was handed out.
Since Jesus spoke specifically to His disciples with this Commission, rather than the entire crowds, we understand it to be specific to the clergy, rather than the population at large, although admittedly all have their part to play.
The focus of the Gospel is Christ and what He did. The focus of the Beatitudes is to describe what a faithful Christian looks like. Apprehension and acceptance of the Gospel will result in conformity with the Beatitudes.
The reverse is true, actually. If one does this, then that will be the reward, is the way that it is written. I believe that you have cause and effect reversed.
That doesn't follow. The indwelling Reformed Holy Spirit IS able to inform the elect of the faith infallibly through the Holy Spirit's infallible word, which includes the Gospel. The Holy Bible is not a book of men about God (there are zillions of those), rather it is a unique book of GOD about God. (And I mean that in accordance with what the CCC says about the Bible.)
Then are you saying that the indwelling Reformed Holy Spirit provides an inerrant interpretation of Scripture (of whichever Bible one happens to be reading), rather than an indwelling knowledge of Scripture in its intended totality?
Your statement on the Reformed reprobates doing better, even though they are going to wind up in hell, by knowing the Gospel is, shall I say, the most unChristian statement that I recall you posting.
None of them should be ignored, just interpreted correctly. :) We just disagree on whether certain actions are conditions to become saved, or are evidence of already having been saved. When we both see "the meek shall inherit the earth" we both say "true".
This passage means "all the meek", not just the Reformed elect meek.
If that is an icon of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, then it is much closer to the Mormon understanding of God than the Biblical understanding.
Since when does the Father have a body of flesh and bones?
And since the Father is probably the guy with the grey hair, is it your understanding that the Father is older than the Son? Because that is the idea represented in that image.
Is the Father aging or was He always a grey haired old man?
And who is the little icon face in the middle?
Are there four members of the Trinity?
Did the Church sanction that image? Is that an "official" icon?
...I find it quite inconsistent that a Calvinist would ARGUE and try to convince a Non-Calvinist to think differently than they do. ...Curiously, why do you argue at all?
Do you happen to have one of those
bumper stickers on your car?
“Could it be that God has given to some “nothing” as a means of saving grace?”
I suppose God could do that but then it opens up a whole new argument for say, the people in Nepal, a closed country who never hear the gospel yet look at creation and say the cow or Buddha or another avatar could be god. Or maybe some unfortunate preteen in Harlem who has never seen the country side or God’s magnificent nature or any sort of loveor discipline except from the gang having been raised in the streets. How is it just to provide “special grace” for the infant and not for these? Certainly it could be argued that they have been given “nothing”.
There is nothing definitive in the scriptures concerning “special grace”; there is only the one way to God. We depend on His righteous and graciousness for our salvation and the unborn and infants who die. This appears to be one of those Deut. 29:29 deals.
I think that it dates from the 500s. I will ask my friend Kosta to read this icon. It is closer to the Christianity of Jesus and the Apostles than anything that came from and after the Reformation.
And since the Father is probably the guy with the grey hair, is it your understanding that the Father is older than the Son? Because that is the idea represented in that image.I>
I had thought that you knew more about Christianity than this. This is your heritage, not the bleatings of the Reformers in their cups.
You have put your finger on the deep contradiction that envelopes the Calvinist construct. If there is "only the one way to God", then what is it?
If it is somehow synergistic and faith is an essential element pof it, then my whole argument for saving the infants falls apart as does the hope of any infant of being saved.
Indeed if faith is a necessary ingredient of salvation, then you cannot escape it being synergistic. But if salvation is monergistic, as you Calvinists claim, then the "only one way to God" is not by faith but by election and what follows election is entirely God's responsibility and whatever faith is put into the elect's heart or mind by God following election is a "saving faith" even if it is no faith at all!
So what is it? Is it all of God and none of man? If so, then Faith and works and everything that follows election is just window dressing and the elect is saved not by anything that follows election but by the election itself.
And who is to say that the infant or the Nepalese peasant or anyone else God so chooses to be numbered among the elect is not saved, regardless of any outward expression of objective or even subjective faith in Christ. For all we know saving faith to those who die without Christ is imparted monergistically during the five minutes when the oxygen stops flowing through the veins and the brain shuts down.
So what is it? Is God wholly responsible for those he saves or do men actually have to do something to secure their election.
At the healing of the man born blind, Jesus told his opponents that if they were blind they wouldn’t be accountable, but since they say “we see” that their sin remains.
Sounds quite a bit like P-Marlowe’s take on this.
So much more for children. They don’t “see”, so their accountability is absent.
God created this world knowing who would be saved and who would be lost. He did not have to create this world. His act of doing so "locked in place" those saved and those lost before they were even born.
In that life God foresaw them live, He offered everyone Christ and some received while others resisted. This past Christmas when I received a box of chocolate cherries (a favorite of mine) I was sure to explain to the gifter how hard I worked setting up the conditions so that I would get offered those cherries and then ceremonially accept them. I don't think so. Receiving a gift is passive.
“You have put your finger on the deep contradiction that envelopes the Calvinist construct.”
I don’t think the contradiction is in the Calvinist construct. Romans 5 says all have sinned in Adam, the federal head. That includes the unborn and the infant. That imputed sin and the alienation (spiritual death) it caused was atoned for at the cross. By God’s grace through faith that righteousness of Jesus is imputed to man. The verses I cited (Psa 22:9-10, Psa 139:13-16, Isa. 49:1,5, Jer. 1:5,)state that God knew us and called us before we were born. Psa. 103:14, “For he knoweth our frame”. Before we were born He knew what we would do. Death is no hinderance to the plan and purposes of God. It is just the vehicle that He uses to call His own home, earlier or later. The reason and the effects flowing from His homecalling plan have wider ramifications than just for deceased.
What difference does it make if God foreknew before the foundation of the world that one would live to be 70 or 80 and not believe or if He knew that the unborn or the infant would not believe at any time in this life? Their condemnation is not dependant on their committed sins. They were adjudged guilty in Adam. God knows what they would have done had they lived.
Rev. 17:8 says that the names were written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, so God knows those that are His from the foundation of the world.
Is faith a necessary element of salvation? If so, then salvation is synergistic by definition. God does his part by electing and man does his part by having faith. One way or the other the man participates in his own salvation. If faith is not necessary and election is the only way to God, then (and only then) can you claim that salvation is monergistic and if it is truly monergistic, then God is free to save even those who up until the time their blood stops flowing through their veins have never expressed a faith in Christ.
So I'll ask the question again:
So what is it? Is God wholly responsible for those he saves or do men actually have to do something to secure their election.
You have reached the voice mail of B.D. I am not available at this time having gone to bed just before this reply. If you are in need of immediate assistance please ping the (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*) or his assistant, the chaplain xzins.
Have a good day and will see you on Neener Friday.
this is a recorded announcement and I approve of it.
The name of the icon is "Holy Trinity" (Hagia Trias). The Spirit is really not a "person" here but "love between the Father and the Son." very literalitistic and theologically (but no necessarily biblically) wrong, all things considered.
Here is an equally wrong Russian icon of more recent making with a similar idea, although also quite different. Notice the Father's halo is dark (!) and does not represent the alpha and omega and the inscription ΟΩΝ (the Greek equivalent of YHWH) as in the previous. And only Jesus holds the Gospels, but in the other one the Father holds the Ten Commandments. Also the Russian icon identifies the Father as the Lord Sabaoth (Lord of Hosts). Of course, the Father is "old" and the Son is "young" which is heresy.
A more "theologically correct" icon of Trinity is the famous Rublev's icon, showing all three Hypostases as young gedner-neutral angelic (winged) beings
I think either of these is totally blasphemous and wrong. It is one thing to represent Jesus as a man; it's an altogether complete departure from Church teaching to create images of God.
Just curious: What did God do all those aeons before he created the world?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.