A talking husband, now? And in very good company, I trust. Is he a theologian? We are to take your statement attributed to him as Gospel, now? What other marvelous pearls of wisdom does he have for us?
Posted on 10/31/2010 11:59:22 AM PDT by RnMomof7
That sounds a little Arian, don't you think? How does deference in all things become co-equality in all things except the Fatherhood?
You know, I have read some idiodic posts on the RF on various opinions of the "Reformed" theology from an "Orthodox" perspective before, and I have to admit that this takes first prize. Congrats!
Thank you for the kudos. Let us examine why I would say that, shall we? http://www.reformationtheology.com/2007/12/images_of_the_savior_48_his_cr.php says that:
Furthermore, the absoluteness of God’s justice, the uncompromisable purity of his holiness, the infinite weight of his wrath against sin, are all things which we never glimpse so emphatically as we do when we gaze at the Son of God suffering under the curse of God, bearing God’s wrath as he hangs upon a tree. How unflinching is God’s justice, how vast his hatred of all which is opposed to his holy nature that, because of sin, he was pleased to crush his only spotless Son (Isaiah 53:10), whom he loved with all the love of an infinite Being who is very love! God’s justice must be infinite; because to satisfy it, he required an infinite sacrifice, even Jesus Christ, infinite in his being, purity, and holiness. God’s wrath must be eternal; because to exhaust it took the death of One who is very Life, eternal and unchangeable in his Person. Oh how great is the display of God in his holiness, purity, love of right and hatred of wrong, faithfulness to carry out the demands of his immutable law – how great is the display of who God is on the cross of Calvary!
Note the wording: suffering, wrath, crush, justice, sacrifice, more wrath and more hatred. This is not Christianity. Let us turn to the WCF for further illumination:
Chapter 3:
6. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by his Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by his power, through faith, unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only. 7. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.
Note the wording here: God is pleased to create men specifically for dishonor and wrath. In other words, He created them specifically to send them to hellfire forever. That is not Christian; that is pagan.
Chapter 6:
6. Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto, doth, in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God, and curse of the law, and so made subject to death, with all miseries spiritual, temporal, and eternal.
Wrath, transgression, guilt, curse, death.
Chapter 8:
1. It pleased God, in his eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, his only begotten Son, to be the Mediator between God and man, the Prophet, Priest, and King, the Head and Savior of his church, the Heir of all things, and Judge of the world: unto whom he did from all eternity give a people, to be his seed, and to be by him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified.
Sounds like God created another god, to which He gave Jesus all things which includes all the men that were created explicitly for damnation - more evidence that the Reformed God is a pagan bloodthirsty Dagon.
Chapter 33:
3. As Christ would have us to be certainly persuaded that there shall be a day of judgment, both to deter all men from sin; and for the greater consolation of the godly in their adversity: so will he have that day unknown to men, that they may shake off all carnal security, and be always watchful, because they know not at what hour the Lord will come; and may be ever prepared to say, Come Lord Jesus, come quickly, Amen.
The whole WCF up until now has told us that the reprobate cannot avoid sin and cannot be saved. Why this little idiotic phrase: to deter men from their sins? More cruel japes to which the Reformed God subjects his creation? You MUST read up on the Greek gods and their cruel shenanigans.
Ping to post 3423
A talking husband, now? And in very good company, I trust. Is he a theologian? We are to take your statement attributed to him as Gospel, now? What other marvelous pearls of wisdom does he have for us?
That doesn't sound right, Kolo. If that were so, then the Son would be sitting to the left of the Father, and the Father to the right of the Son.
Moreover, the Son becomes the central figure, displacing the Father. The Son's aureole stands out and eclipses the Father's and the Spirit's, etc. This simply cannot be the right interpretation, or its theology and symbolism seem even heretical.
Here is the same icon from the Assumption Cathedral of Moscow (Kremlin), which really puts the above in perspective:
The angel on the left is not even looking at Christ, and the one on the right has a different afterglow. Moreover, only Christ's wings are fully spread, dominating the picture, and a Christ is again the central image, dominating the scene. Jesus' are aureole doesn't have the cross and the Ο ΩΝ in it.
Furthermore, the angle on the left is gazing at the one on the right, and so is Christ, and the one on the right is gazing straight, not looking at anyone.
Besides the fact that the one on the right also has some headpiece which too me looks very feminine, and a different color hair and some square white foreground to his capital afterglow. Curiously, Christ is sitting to the right of that angel, which at least gets that part theologically correct.
And then there is this whole "sitting to the right" problem: if the son is sitting tot he right of the Father, then the Father is sitting to the right of the Spirit. And if the Son's place is one of privilege, that makes the Holy Spirit a sort of a "third fiddle".
That's what happens when you mix Judas and Hellenism with a sprinkling of Zoroastrianism. :)
My understanding was that the Son visited with two angels. Can we get a clarification on this?
Isn't God the Father not supposed to pictured in icons anthropomorphically? Jesus Incarnated; his form was seen. The Holy Spirit was seen as a descending dove, fire, etc. What form should the Father take in a proper icon?
A talking husband, now? And in very good company, I trust. Is he a theologian? We are to take your statement attributed to him as Gospel, now? What other marvelous pearls of wisdom does he have for us?
How unflinching is God’s justice, how vast his hatred of all which is opposed to his holy nature that, because of sin, he was pleased to crush his only spotless Son (Isaiah 53:10), whom he loved with all the love of an infinite Being who is very love! [WMF]
God's infinite love is matched only by his infinite hate. Wow! (never mind the bogus Bible reference, which obviously doesn't refer to Christ at all..."he shall see his seed [!]", and God will "prolong his days," etc.)
It's perfectly compatioble with the Platonic demiurge. In fact, much of Pauline writing refers to Chirst as a demiurge.
“That doesn’t sound right, Kolo.”
But it is right, Kosta mou, no matter how it sounds. Trust me on this one. Otherwise, I have no explanation for the Russian icon you have posted.
Your God? Your own personal God? This is another damnable result of the Reformation. Christians don't believe that they "have" a God - they believe that God has them.
Genesis 1: 23 Evening came, and morning followed--the fifth day. 24 Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth all kinds of living creatures: cattle, creeping things, and wild animals of all kinds." And so it happened: 25 God made all kinds of wild animals, all kinds of cattle, and all kinds of creeping things of the earth. God saw how good it was. 26 4 Then God said: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and the cattle, and over all the wild animals and all the creatures that crawl on the ground." 27 God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them.
Scripture says that God created man, not vice versa. What obligation does man have to God?
Matthew 4: 'The Lord, your God, shall you worship and him alone shall you serve.'
You are correct Mark. Angles however are not an anthropomorphic depiction of the Father. This icon is of an OT "type" for the Holy Trinity. The anthropomorphic depiction of the Father is a picture called the "Ancient of Days" which is said to be heretical. There is no icon of God the Father alone. The only non-heretical depiction is in the Trinity Icons after the fashion of the one I posted or that of Rubelev.
Indeed it does. Distracted typing. I should have said that Christ deferred to the Father in "these" things, meaning begetting and procession.
Remember a few years back, I waded through the WCF and did a listing of proofs? It is no mistake that Muhammed's Allah bears a striking resemblence to Calvin's God. They use many similar proofs - Calvin relied largely on the OT with seemingly agreeing Pauline verse in order to construct something that Christianity up to that point had only seen from those opposing it. There is much speculation that Muhammed was at least initially influenced by the Bible and by Christians and Jews. The myriad references to the OT prophets and the naming of Jesus as the second greatest prophet are evidence.
Osiris, Kali, and the Keres live on...
Got it. Thanks.
Rejected again..get serious.
“Your response is proof that you have zero, zilch evidence”
First of all, the idea that God cannot be seen and has never been seen is an New Testament Platonic innovation held by Paul and John/1 John. The OT doesn't say that. It says that no one has seen God and lived. But that's not true as the OT is full of verses contradicting this statement in Exodus, by stating that many have seen God face to face (and lived), etc.
But God also appears in disguises, as a burning bush, or as an angel (with Jacob), so the OT icons in question is not really heretical because the Father is depicted as an angel; it seems heretical because of the centrality and dominance of the Son, who, as Kolo says, supposedly deterrent to the Father in all things (which raises aproblem with the hypostatic co-equality)!
There are however, numerous, numerous truly heretical icons in supposedly orthodox churches, depicting the Father as an "old man".
Here is one example
The icon, second from the left of the Royal Doors, is a Trinity icon depicting the Father as an old man. This is in a Greek Orthodox Church and the icon was written in Mt. Athos, the Holy Mountain, in Greece, one of the holiest places in Orthodoxy!
Here is another Greek Orthodox iconostasis (icon stand), in Auckland, New Zealand, with the same icon (second from the left)
And I don't mean to pick on Greeks, as there are numerous "Trinity" icons in other Orthodox churches, especially Eastern-Catholic Ukrainian and Rutheaian variety), even Anglican!
It's amazing, but pictures don't lie. Whether you consult the Bible or the Church, you run into the same dilemma.
It looks like the RCs have run out of anything of substance to say.
They’ve resorted to the usual Catholic tactic of mockery and ridicule to try to turn the tables on the non-Catholics to get the attention off the fact that they’re taking a beating.
There’s simply no way they can justify or reconcile with Catholic church doctrine, their wholesale rejection of the inerrancy and veracity of Scripture.
Viva la Reformation...
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.