This is a detail of the Icon of the Pantokrator from the dome of the church of the monastery at Daphni. He doesn't look weak, FK...and He clearly is not in the least amused, maybe with the notion that He is weak.
Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
Only if they are presumed to be in the image of God. Being that they were created to be evil that is an oxymoron. Otherwise, the reprobate are no different than animals.
That is your judgment and you are entitled to it. You are the one proclaiming as fact God's motives (on behalf of Bible-believing Christians) with zero scriptural support. You are smarter than I if you are right. :) As far as being "created to be evil" goes, the Bible says that all men are born into total depravity:
Isa 64:6 : All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away.
Matt 7:17-18 : 17 Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. (Smashing the "we are only wounded theory".)
And from Got Questions?:
The total depravity of man is seen throughout the Bible. Man’s heart is “deceitful and desperately wicked” (Jeremiah 17:9) and the thoughts of his heart are “continually evil” (Genesis 6:5). The Bible also teaches us that man is born dead in transgression and sin (Psalm 51:5, Psalm 58:3, Ephesians 2:1-5). The Bible teaches that because unregenerate man is “dead in transgressions” (Ephesians 2:5), he is held captive by a love for sin (John 3:19; John 8:34) so that he will not seek God (Romans 3:10-11) because he loves the darkness (John 3:19) and does not understand the things of God (1 Corinthians 2:14). Therefore men suppress the truth of God in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18) and continue to willfully live in sin. Because they are totally depraved this sinful lifestyle seems right to men (Proverbs 14:12) so they reject the Gospel of Christ as foolishness (1 Corinthians 1:18) and their mind is “hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is unable to do so.” (Romans 8:7).
The Apostle Paul really summarizes the total depravity of man in Romans 3:9-18. He begins this passage by saying that “both Jews and Greeks are all under sin.” Simply put this means that man is under the control of sin or is controlled by his sin nature (his natural tendency to sin). The fact that unregenerate people are controlled by their selfish, sinful tendencies should not come as a surprise to any parent. What parent has to teach their children to be selfish, to covet what someone else has or to lie? Those actions come naturally from the child’s sin nature. Instead the parent must devote much time to teaching the child the importance of telling the truth, of sharing instead of being selfish, of obeying instead of rebelling, etc.
Then in the rest of this passage Paul quotes extensively from the Old Testament in explaining how sinful man really is. For example we see that: 1—no one is without sin, 2—no one seeks after God, 3—there is no one who is good, 4—their speech is corrupted by sin, 5—their actions are corrupted by sin, 6—and above all they have no fear of God. So when one considers even these few verses mentioned above it becomes abundantly clear the Bible does indeed teach that fallen man is “totally depraved” because sin affects all of him including his mind, will and emotions so that “There is none who does good, no not one” (Romans 3:12).
So, all men are evil when born. God chooses to save some. Therefore, since the graces (gifts) I am speaking of are from birth, it really is a red herring whether or not one is of the elect as to whether all men are above the animals. The graces given uniquely to all humans are given at a time when all humans are equally depraved.
FK: VERY un-Apostolic, but I'll take it in a heartbeat
How is that un-Apostolic? You mean unBiblical?
Yes, nobody gets into Heaven but for Christ. But this does not mean that no one was saved until Christ died and rose within time. That's a side issue, though.
There is no redemption before Christ. If you believe people were saved before his sacrifice on the cross, then his sacrifice on the cross was not necessary.
His sacrifice made it possible for mankind to be saved by freeing people from enslavement of death to which everyone was subject. (and no, Elijah never died...)
[Ibid.] Thus by His own power He restored the whole nature of man.
I'm not sure what he means by this. From his scripture quotes it sort of sounds like he means universal salvation, but I don't know. ........ While Christ's sacrifice certainly had a huge effect on the elect, what difference did it make for the reprobate? I mean, were OT reprobate somehow different from the reprobate of today?
That's because your theology is in conflict with the theology of the early Church. The atonement taught by your theology is not the atonement understood by those who walked with the Apostles.
OK, this seems to say that we can't know "God" but for Christ. I am fine with that as long as everyone agrees that Christ was all over the OT
You keep saying that. Please show me where is Christ in the OT!
I have to TOTALLY disagree with this one, for it has man coming to God by his own independent decisions and acts. The Bible just doesn't teach this. I mean, this says one way to salvation was by leading a good life and knowing the Law. Nobody was ever saved that way.
More conflict with the original Christianity. It shows that the Bible was not the way (it isn't even now, for the faith GIVEN). It had a lot to do with how you lived and not what you preached. Preaching is just words. You can make yourself holier than though with words and lead a completely different lifestyle. In other words, words are cheap. We know what we are by what we do. And God judges us by what we do, not what we preach.
No, FK. Your theology teaches that God created man in order for him to commit sin and change his nature so all generations can be evil!
All people are born "wanting" to be goats
By the Reformed God's design, no doubt.
If God changed His plan, then that would admit mistake, and God would cease to be God
The God is subject to something higher than he is.
No, God makes no adjustments. Tuesday vs. Thursday refers to the original choice.
Well, in that case, God does not intervene and therefore prayers are empty rituals. They change nothing in this theology of yours. You don't even pray on your own, but because God predistined you to pray.
God willed it first and set the conditions, but He did not force me to do anything. My free will chose to sin by murder, all by itself
No, FK, it's because [the Reformed] God preodained you to do so, and it has to happen exactly as he preodained. You weren't forced, but your choices were made before you even existed!
Then all the infinats who die go to hell. They are already evil. By Reformed God's design, no doubt.
It's a satanic theology, FK, that teaches a "God" who creates people evil and says they are in his image.
FK: Your conclusion is pure speculation based on something EXTREMELY unlikely. Possible, yes, but likely, no way.
Kosta: I would say impossible, FK. The Christian God would never do that! But the Reformed theology teaches us that their God would, for his own "glory" no less!
Yes, if Hitler truly repented and asked Christ into His heart just before he died, then the Reformed God would accept him. I did not know that with the Apostolic God, it is too late for some while they live on earth. One of the reasons the Reformed God is glorified is that it is NEVER too late for anyone to repent.
You admitted earlier that God willed evil as a necessary element in his "plan." Here you admit that God had his hand in the Holocaust, exerting divine control over it.
Where you want to go I cannot follow. Yes, God had control over the Holocaust, but He did not force anyone to sin. The alternative is a weak God who is not in control and just lets whatever happens, happen. That God demonstrates extreme irresponsibility and should have His license to create REVOKED. :)
Are you really not capable of seeing where this theology comes from?
Sure I am. The Holy Scriptures. :)
This is a detail of the Icon of the Pantokrator from the dome of the church of the monastery at Daphni. He doesn't look weak, FK...and He clearly is not in the least amused, maybe with the notion that He is weak.
From the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception... Not looking so weak there either.
On which account am I wrong? Are you now saying that Abraham, according to the Reformed theology, was not predestined to believe and appreciate his faith?
I said in my post: "All those things you listed, a [personal] relationship with God as a believer, our prayers, and our good works, are all gifts from God. We benefit from them." You contended that none of those things matter to us as Reformers. I am saying, "yes" they do. ........ Abraham was predestined to believe, AND, it matters that he believed, prayed, and did good works. And because those things matter, God uses a variety of means to ensure that they happen.
Are you now saying that our prayers and our faith somehow changes anything that hasn't already been determined by God before we even existed?
No, but that doesn't mean they don't matter. If I predestine that I'm going to eat tonight, does it matter if I actually do? Of course. Certain activities are of value and import even if they DON'T thwart the will of God or change His mind. :)
It is not an illusion, indeed deception (and we know who the father of those is!) that our prayers and faith make a difference if everything was predestined and we are simply acting out a pre-choregraphed script? We are simply reading the lines of the drama text the Reformed God wrote for us before we existed.
It might be a deception if God didn't tell us all about His sovereignty and how this works. But, glory be to God, He gave us the scriptures and it's all right there. :) So, no deception.
The difference is made in their happening, not because it changes God's mind. Someone gets sick. People pray. The sick person gets better. Was prayer answered? YES. God ordained the prayer as well as His healing of the sick person. Since God does not ordain that which doesn't matter, the prayers mattered.
We are simply reading the lines of the drama text the Reformed God wrote for us before we existed.
But God doesn't give us the text, so for us it's all improv. :) That's real enough for me.
Part of Reformed God's choreography...none of it changes anything.
So if man doesn't have the power to change God's mind, to say "hey God, you're wrong about this because ...." then you would say that's a bad thing?
We can pray for someone to get well, but if that person doesn't make it, then our prayers were not in accordance with God's will. If we didn't pray, that person would have died anyway because the Reformed God willed it so. So, the prayer changed nothing.
Sure, but our prayers were not in vain either. ........ If humans changed God's mind then we would have power over God. I don't want power over the God I believe in. :)
And, if the person does get well then our prayers did nothing either, since it was God's will to begin with that this person should get well, and our prayers changed nothing.
No, because again the prayers were not in vain. God responded to the prayers within time without having to change His mind. I don't understand the mindset that says that prayers are useless unless they constitute orders to God.
Kosta-””Then all the infinats who die go to hell. They are already evil. By Reformed God's design, no doubt.
It's a satanic theology, FK, that teaches a “God” who creates people evil and says they are in his image.””
Yes ,it is satanic theology
FK, do you believe that there are babies in hell? If so, why and for what purpose? Perhaps to save the elect? Why?
Why would God offer human sacrifice of an innocent child to the devil?
John Calvin said "there are babies a span long in hell".
Do you actually believe this?
He will accept a repentant Hitler, but he will use "evil" infants, who die, as hell's fire logs (since we are all born "evil," as you reminded me)? The infants who did absolutely nothing evil, the infants who cannot repent (for their future sins!), the Reformed God will send to hell because they are "evil" infants!
So, here we have another fine example of the Reformed insanity: if Hitler died as an infant, he would go to hell for sure because God would see him as evil. But if Hitler repented in his bunker before he died, God would accept him, and all his evil deeds would be forgiven?
Reformed theology 101: make sure you live to adulthood, even if the Reformed God predestined you to commit most heinous crimes, and then repent before you die. If you have the bad luck of dying as an infant, tough! You are a fire log!
But, we have a complicating matter here: if Hitler repented, and then shot himself, does that wipe out the forgiveness he received for his sins and restores his guilt, or is he now only guilty of suicide?
Tell me, FK, are there different "tiers" in hell (just in reverse fashion from those in heaven), i.e. for those who "just" committed grave sins, such as suicide ("grave," it kills you, get it, LOL!), and another (I suppose hotter tier) for those mass murders and rapists? And one can only speculate as to what temperature (white light, billions of degrees F) reserved for people like (unrepentant) Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.!
Yes, God had control over the Holocaust, but He did not force anyone to sin
But [the Reformed] God predestined them to sin, and they had no choice but to sin!
The alternative is a weak God who is not in control and just lets whatever happens, happen
For how many generations did this strong [Reformed] God sit back and did nothing before he decided to drown the whole earth because this sovereign [Reformed] God did absolutely nothing to prevent man from extreme wickedness? (cf Gen 6:6)
Does this mean that this strong Reformed God just sat back and let things happen, or does it mean that men became wicked on His watch because this Reformed God willed it ? [and then got angry when he got what he willed?!]
That God demonstrates extreme irresponsibility and should have His license to create REVOKED
Yeah, but God is under no obligation to be fair and balanced...for, no matter what he does, he is never subjected to any responsibility! :)
Both are doing precisely the same thing because love of neighbor is love of God and love of God is love of neighbor. (I am not saying that the neighbor is God, merely that one expression of love and the other expression of love are different expressions of the same Christian obligation).
That's interesting. I didn't think one could love another in utter ignorance. Jesus said:
John 14:15 : "If you love me, you will obey what I command.
I suppose I do not see how it is possible for an atheist to "obey" God. I think a person must have an understanding of why he is doing what he is doing for it to count for obedience. In the military it would be "because my superior ordered me to". An atheist can't say that. To me, it's like because I am a Cardinals fan, whenever the Cardinals win they are "obeying" me personally. It just doesn't work like that. In order to truly obey, one must first have a command that he is aware of.
... Miracles, martyrdom, and spontaneous veneration of the faithful are all factors in the recognition. After all, if no one prays to the proposed saint, there is no way he can work a miracle attributable to him.
Oh, I don't think I understood that detail. So when we talk about the miracles of a proposed saint we are talking about those performed after he or she departed? I guess I assumed it would be for miracles performed during earthly life, like a healing. But if it is for miracles after departure, how can anyone miss? :)
Good question, Brother!
No, FK, what matters is that you will eat tonight because that's what "predestined" means. Predestined means that you cannot change your "destiny,"an inevitable course of events/actions.
What happens to a character in a movie is "predestined." Your will counts for nothing. You can sit throughout the whole movie and pray that the movie end the way you want it; it's all for naught. And if it does end the way you wanted it to end, it's not because of your prayers! You just guessed. :)
Someone gets sick. People pray. The sick person gets better. Was prayer answered? YES. God ordained the prayer as well as His healing of the sick person.
So, instead of just healing a person, God wants us to dance, cry, worry and pray to him?
Ten there is the other scenario: a person gets sick, his loved ones worry, cry, dance, pray, and the person dies anyway. The prayers are "not answered" because it was predestined for that eprson to die.
It's sounds like God wants us to go through the hoops to get our answer instead of just putting our destiny in his hands! Not that any of what we do changes anything, he just wants to beg him? I don't know that "God," FK.
Grace alone for what? :) Since in Catholicism grace alone results in the salvation of no one for certain, what is the distinction with faith alone? My guess would be the physical requirements needed for salvation along with faith, like water baptism. On Sola Fide, Eph. 2:8-10 says it in no uncertain terms. Sola Fide is biblical.
Kosta-””Then all the infinats who die go to hell. They are already evil. By Reformed God's design, no doubt. It's a satanic theology, FK, that teaches a “God” who creates people evil and says they are in his image.””
stfassisi-Yes ,it is satanic theology
Well, I'd for one would be careful with that analysis. After all, FK is correct; all men are evil when born. And FK is also correct in that God deliberately and purposefully allowed the fall of man. To deny that is to deny God was powerless to stop Adam and Eve-another point FK made.
Kosta simply comes to the wrong conclusion that all infants who die go to hell. The fact is man is saved by faith through God's grace. It is impossible for us to know the faith of any man, including infants, save our own.
As far as John Calvin's comment "there are babies a span long in hell", I can find no reference to that in my search of his works. Actually, Calvin believed just the opposite if writings about his works are to be believed, that babies automatically go to heaven. This I believe is just as much of an error as saying all babies go to hell. We simply don't know and leave this to the divine wisdom of God who is the justifier of all men.
To deny original sin is simply not recognizing our own depravity. Remember, it was the Catholic Church that believed (at least at one time) in original sin. The Eastern Church never believed it. Arguing in support of the Orthodox position is simply to deny the original teachings of the Western Church.
:)
Prove it!
It is impossible for us to know the faith of any man, including infants, save our own
Infants have faith! LOL! Or maybe the Reformed God justmakes a suitable "crop" of infants that are saved, just as he does adults, and the rest are fire logs...
Remember, it was the Catholic Church that believed (at least at one time) in original sin. The Eastern Church never believed it. Arguing in support of the Orthodox position is simply to deny the original teachings of the Western Church
The Catholic Church, as far as I know, teaches that we are born with the consequences of the original sin (propensity to sin), not with the "guilt."
The Orthodox Church does not deny the original (ancestral) sin. It doesn't (and never did) teach the Augustinian idea of the orignal sin.
Correct
from the Catechism
405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence”. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.
Thus we should understand
Reflecting theologically on the salvation of infants who die without baptism, the church respects the hierarchy of truths and therefore begins by clearly reaffirming the primacy of Christ and his grace, which has priority over Adam and sin. Jesus Christ, in his existence for us and in the redemptive power of his sacrifice, died and rose again for all. By his whole life and teaching, he revealed the fatherhood of God and his universal love.
(from Catholic Culture)
We entrust the infants to the mercy of God who is Love.
The infants are in the category of the Holy Innocents
Kosta-Prove it!
1Ki 14:12 Arise thou therefore, get thee to thine own house: [and] when thy feet enter into the city, the child shall die.
1Ki 14:13 And all Israel shall mourn for him, and bury him: for he only of Jeroboam shall come to the grave, because in him there is found [some] good thing toward the LORD God of Israel in the house of Jeroboam.
I would agree with this catechism, original sin is the inclination to sin. This inclination is evil and is consistent with the scriptures that "No one does what is right; not one". As FK, countless Reformers, and me have stated many times, man seeks to do those things that are contrary to God's will. This IS the Augustinian idea of sin.
The Orthodox do not believe that man is tainted or that man is "inclined" to sin. Instead they believe he can choose to sin or not to sin. This belief runs counter to this Catechism and the western father's teaching on the subject.
The NEXT line in the Catechism says this..
406 The Church's teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine's reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God's grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam's fault to bad example. the first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. the Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529)296 and at the Council of Trent (1546)
Here is a good historical article on this that shows what the Greek and Latin Fathers said.Blessed Augustine made some error's as well
http://www.catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=7529
I wish you a Blessed evening!
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.