Iconoclast

[Grailhunter]

I often see Calvinists driving this home to non-Calvinists who never deny that redemption belongs to God. It gets very philosophical (sometimes one side twists the other so that they can argue against it).

I agree that God does not have to force or deny salvation. If God had to force salvation then the gospel does not really matter (God just saves people, they don't need to know why or repent or anything). If God forces people to deny Christ then they are not responsible for their denial and God is truly unjust. I agree that both of these are erroneous views.

I think I have told you this before. If you want to know the truth about Christianity, if you want to know the wisdom of Christianity, if you want to know Spirit of Christ......after you know the scriptures backwards and forwards, step back and look at what Christ and the Apostles were doing and why. The whole bible is about freewill and the choices people make. This is a story of the love that the Trinity has for us, to step in and make things right. Even to the extent that a God had to be nailed to a cross. This was to lift us up, not make us puppets in any way. Not that we deserved anything, in fact the Trinity loved us even though we were lost. This a story of redemption, it is a story of divine rescue. This is a story of change, a change in our relationship with the Trinity, a change of heart even towards the Pagans. The words "Kill all that breaths and don't for get the little ones" will never again be spoken. Instead God offered up His Son and Christ was crucified to not only save us from hell but to make us part of the family of God. This is a total divine sacrifice for the love of us. There is a storyline in the scriptures, a mission and an intent to change us so that we can inherit the kingdom of Heaven, so that we are part of the body of Christ and as such members of the family of God.

 

[John Caldwell]

I think I have told you this before. If you want to know the truth about Christianity, if you want to know the wisdom of Christianity, if you want to know Spirit of Christ......after you know the scriptures backwards and forwards, step back and look at what Christ and the Apostles were doing and why. The whole bible is about freewill and the choices people make. This is a story of the love that the Trinity has for us, to step in and make things right. Even to the extent that a God had to be nailed to a cross. This was to lift us up, not make us puppets in any way. Not that we deserved anything, in fact the Trinity loved us even though we were lost. This a story of redemption, it is a story of divine rescue. This is a story of change, a change in our relationship with the Trinity, a change of heart even towards the Pagans. The words "Kill all that breaths and don't for get the little ones" will never again be spoken. Instead God offered up His Son and Christ was crucified to not only save us from hell but to make us part of the family of God. This is a total divine sacrifice for the love of us. There is a storyline in the scriptures, a mission and an intent to change us so that we can inherit the kingdom of Heaven, so that we are part of the body of Christ and as such members of the family of God.

I agree. I've argued for years that our focus should be on the Kingdom.

Elsewhere I accused Calvinism of being man centered - focused on our individual sins. It is not good enough for the Calvinists that Christ die for the sins of mankind (as the Early Church believed, for the "human family") in order to establish His Kingdom. Their argument was Christ has to be punished with the punishment that the elect would have received for each sin these men committed or His death was worthless. If that is true then Calvinism has to be true. My argument was that idea to be a humanistic corruption of Scripture. The Atonement is so much greater than that with so much greater effect than Calvinism will acknowledge.

What I have seen is encouraging, and that is a movement from within Calvinism to reform Calvinism in order to embrace a more biblical stance less focused on tradition and theory and more focused on Scripture. I do not know how far these movements will go, but it is encouraging that at least some within those circles are thinking about these things.

 

[Grailhunter]

I agree. I've argued for years that our focus should be on the Kingdom.

Elsewhere I accused Calvinism of being man centered - focused on our individual sins. It is not good enough for the Calvinists that Christ die for the sins of mankind (as the Early Church believed, for the "human family") in order to establish His Kingdom. Their argument was Christ has to be punished with the punishment that the elect would have received for each sin these men committed or His death was worthless. If that is true then Calvinism has to be true. My argument was that idea to be a humanistic corruption of Scripture. The Atonement is so much greater than that with so much greater effect than Calvinism will acknowledge.

What I have seen is encouraging, and that is a movement from within Calvinism to reform Calvinism in order to embrace a more biblical stance less focused on tradition and theory and more focused on Scripture. I do not know how far these movements will go, but it is encouraging that at least some within those circles are thinking about these things.

Their argument was Christ has to be punished with the punishment that the elect would have received for each sin these men committed or His death was worthless. If that is true then Calvinism has to be true.

What does this mean? There is nothing in the Calvinist doctrine that speaks the truth. Their doctrine either edifies themselves, while making us all out to be puppets, and slanders God by making Him out to be a blood thirsty monster. There is no good, no truth, just wrong.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

John Caldwell,

What I have seen is encouraging, and that is a movement from within Calvinism to reform Calvinism in order to embrace a more biblical stance less focused on tradition and theory and more focused on Scripture. I do not know how far these movements will go, but it is encouraging that at least some within those circles are thinking about these things.

This is a falsehood that has been repeated. JonC hates Calvinism and Calvinists and has found some fellow haters here. All the talk of tolerance and love is negated in this thread alone.
Now everyone can believe what they want, that is fine.
They can attack by calling names but do not interact with scripture which is God-given.
They can not deal with any of the scripture. That brings us up to date.

 

[John Caldwell]

Their argument was Christ has to be punished with the punishment that the elect would have received for each sin these men committed or His death was worthless. If that is true then Calvinism has to be true.

What does this mean? There is nothing in the Calvinist doctrine that speaks the truth. Their doctrine either edifies themselves, while making us all out to be puppets, and slanders God by making Him out to be a blood thirsty monster. There is no good, no truth, just wrong.

It means that Calvin reformed Aquinas' doctrine. If the Calvinistic Penal Substitution Theory is correct then Calvinism is correct. The Canons of Dort is the logical solution to the issue if its presuppositions are biblical. This includes infant baptism and a Church-state (two reasons Baptists are neither Calvinits or Reformed).

It means that the error if Calvinism is far deeper than the "five points". They do not miss the forrest for the trees as they are not even in the King's wood to begin with.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

Their argument was Christ has to be punished with the punishment that the elect would have received for each sin these men committed or His death was worthless. If that is true then Calvinism has to be true.

What does this mean? There is nothing in the Calvinist doctrine that speaks the truth. Their doctrine either edifies themselves, while making us all out to be puppets, and slanders God by making Him out to be a blood thirsty monster. There is no good, no truth, just wrong.

At least you are honest about your hatred of the God of the bible. Such profane descriptions need to be repented of.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

It means that Calvin reformed Aquinas' doctrine. If the Calvinistic Penal Substitution Theory is correct then Calvinism is correct. The Canons of Dort is the logical solution to the issue if its presuppositions are biblical.

It means that the error if Calvinism is far deeper than the "five points". They do not miss the forrest for the trees as they are not even in the King's wood to begin with.

Confirming everything you have been less than honest about...Good work JonC , trying to be truthful now is better than the lies you put forth! Try to embrace truth and not be a talebearer any longer.

 

[John Caldwell]

Iconoclasm (icon breaking) was a result of the proliferation of ikons -- images -- within the Eastern Orthodox Church. There was a revolt against this practice in the 8th and 9th centuries when the Byzantine empire was flourishing, and the basis of this was the commandment to not make any graven images or the likeness of anything. Emperor Leo III placed a ban on ikons (possibly under Islamic influence), but the popes Gregory II and Gregory III opposed iconoclasm, and there was even warfare over this issue.

Today, the use of images and statues of the saints and Mary are part and parcel of the Catholic and Orthodox churches. But this is in violation of Scripture. Some images even show Mary as Queen of Heaven sitting on a throne.

View attachment 6928

I agree we are not to engage in idolatry (whether a painting, a cross necklace, or a fish on one's car). The issue with Iconoclastism is the determining factor is not the heart of a person but the opion of the Iconoclast.

I have a painting of an artist's interpretation of Christ walking in a field. I have it as it has been passed down from generation to generation. It is not an idol but for some it could be. I have seen Christians put little fishes on their cars. This is not necessarily an idol.

But more to a contemporary setting, Iconoclastism extends to beliefs.

 

[Grailhunter]

At least you are honest about your hatred of the God of the bible. Such profane descriptions need to be repented of.

At least you are honest about your hatred of the God of the bible. Such profane descriptions need to be repented of.

Oh my, hatred is tantamount to murder. No hate just stand against those that would slander God. What should a person to do when faced with such obvious evil? You do not deny what I say, you just support evil. Let start with step one; Is the out come of a person's life determined before they are born and there is no changing it? We can start here so that the person's that do not understand Calvinism on this forum can fully understand the evil the slithers within it. So lets go! Step one.

 

[Grailhunter]

It means that Calvin reformed Aquinas' doctrine. If the Calvinistic Penal Substitution Theory is correct then Calvinism is correct. The Canons of Dort is the logical solution to the issue if its presuppositions are biblical. This includes infant baptism and a Church-state (two reasons Baptists are neither Calvinits or Reformed).

It means that the error if Calvinism is far deeper than the "five points". They do not miss the forrest for the trees as they are not even in the King's wood to begin with.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church. Affectionately know as the "Ox" I was wondering when this would come up? So John, do you believe he as a saint? Do you think Catholics believe that beyond God having the power of predestination, that our lives are actually controlled by God? Not addressing the double predestination thing here.

 

[John Caldwell]

St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church. Affectionately know as the "Ox" I was wondering when this would come up? So John, do you believe he as a saint? Do you think Catholics believe that beyond God having the power of predestination, that our lives are actually controlled by God? Not addressing the double predestination thing here.

I think that Aquinas was wrong....which makes Calvin even more wrong.

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

I will never think ill of anyone letting up on me. This is how we learn. I only ask that we challenge one another as if the other person was one for whom Christ died. That is what so many seem to forget.

I don't know if I've said it here, but I am a Baptist (my church is a member of the Southern Baptist Convention, which to some is far worse than being a Calvinist ).

The reason I never considered myself a Calvinist until the Baptist Board is that Calvinism arrives at its conclusions in a specific way. The whole process assumes a view of the atonement that never existed within Christianity until the Reformation and reaches back to decontextualize early teachings so as to lay hold of a history it truly never knew.

Where I view "total depravity" as meaning no one can merit salvation in and of themselves, Calvinists view this as a result of a changed (a "fallen" nature). Scripture says not that Adam's nature changed but that his eyes were opened to know good and evil as God knows good and evil. I think that the "Fall" demonstrated the nature of man in the face of an infant and almighty God. Adam's sin bore out the ontological state of natural man.

I also do not hold to the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. So where I see Christ as dying for the sheep I do not view Christ as providing atonement for some men but not all. Christ is the Propitiation for our sins, and not only ours but for the sins of the whole world without exclusion. This is why I believe that there will be a final judgment which is Christ-centered (I believe that all judgment has been given to the Son).

So there are many places where my view does not fit within the Calvinistic model. I have no problem not carrying that label.

Unfortunately, the once-mighty Southern Baptist Convention is being taken over by neo-Calvinists. I suppose that neo-Calvinism is something of a reaction to Emerging Church neo-liberalism. But both are radical and extreme. The name of a book by neo-Calvinist, David Platt is ironically enough, Radical. Emerging Church is quite man-centered and neo-Calvinism makes God into a monster and us into meat-puppets. The result is that those who become disillusioned by the manipulation, lying and spiritual abuse present in both "movements" are leaving churches in droves. Satan approves.

 

[John Caldwell]

Unfortunately, the once-mighty Southern Baptist Convention is being taken over by neo-Calvinists. I suppose that neo-Calvinism is something of a reaction to Emerging Church neo-liberalism. But both are radical and extreme. The name of a book by neo-Calvinist, David Platt is ironically enough, Radical. Emerging Church is quite man-centered and neo-Calvinism makes God into a monster and us into meat-puppets. The result is that those who become disillusioned by the manipulation, lying and spiritual abuse present in both "movements" are leaving churches in droves. Satan approves.

Most things are reactionary. Neo-Calvinism is what we most often see (the "cage stage" types). What we have to realize is that Calvinism is these guys gospel, but they can change. Calvinism is their "new toy", and they've neglected all the "old stuff" because it gets in the way. This is also a part of the postmodern (and post-postmodern) movement where the past is removed from its context and claimed for new purposes. It's a recycling of ideas with a claim to antiquity. You sound more en vogue when you say "R.C. Sproul and John Gill taught....." than you do when you say "Jesus said" (not saying bad of Sproul or Gill.....although Gill did teach that Michael was Jesus).

I have not seen too much of this in individual churches. The Convention itself is always in flux (probably should be), and IMHO has out grown its purpose. The important thing is the churches that are members. They are still one of the few larger groups willing to stand for the gospel. It's all the other stuff that they like to stand for that I find troubling.

I don't know if you realized this, but one of the strongest opponents of forming the SBC was R.B.C. Howell. Once the decision was made he supported the churches (and became the 2nd SBC president in 1851). Remember that should you ever make it to Jeopardy and take "SBC trivia for $500.

 

[Helen]

Thank you. My wife and son were out of town. It was just me and the dog for a week. I cooked a meal worthy of dressing for dinner .
View attachment 6927

Great photo....what fun. He looks adorable....
And obedient too...in not touching the food

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

Oh my, hatred is tantamount to murder. No hate just stand against those that would slander God. What should a person to do when faced with such obvious evil? You do not deny what I say, you just support evil. Let start with step one; Is the out come of a person's life determined before they are born and there is no changing it? We can start here so that the person's that do not understand Calvinism on this forum can fully understand the evil the slithers within it. So lets go! Step one.

GH,
If you want to Discuss the issue, it might be better to not derail the thread but to start one on that topic.
If you want to discuss we Calvinists would like you to offer your thoughts with a scriptural base.
in others words, what are you basing your objections on. Give verses

 

[Grailhunter]

GH,
If you want to Discuss the issue, it might be better to not derail the thread but to start one on that topic.
If you want to discuss we Calvinists would like you to offer your thoughts with a scriptural base.
in others words, what are you basing your objections on. Give verses

I believe most everyone here would be interested in you answering this question. Is the out come of a person's life determined before they are born and there is no changing it? The next question is; Are they damned to Hell before they are born? No double talk, just yes or no.

 

[justbyfaith]

Concerning the OP, I have one word ... Gideon / Jerub-baal.

 

[Stranger]

In the 8th Century a "heresy" developed within Christianity called Iconoclastism. These people rejected to religious icons (religious images and monuments), which in itself was not a problem. The problem is that these "heretics" or Iconoclasts persecuted those who did not share this belief and sought to destroy images others cherished.

To illistrate, many people will not have a painting representing Christ or a cross on their homes. An Iconoclast believes he has a God given responsibility to remove these things from their neighbors homes.

Iconoclastism has come to extend to beliefs as well. Christian evangelism is sharing the gospel. Iconoclastism is attacking other beliefs and other belief systems.

To illustrate, when Paul was at the Acropolis he used the pagan view of an "unknown god" to evangelize. Were Paul an Iconoclast his focus would not have been to share the gospel but to first attack the beliefs held by his audience.

Within the Body of Christ we find this "heresy" as well. Christians are commanded not to judge the "servant of Another". Iconoclast demands this command be ignored in favor of tearing down and attacking any belief that they find in error.

This is, of course, is not to say we do not judge. We judge the things we accept. We judge those within our congregations. We guard our church against false doctrine as best we can. But we can only do kingdom work in kingdom ways. God does not bless disobedience regardless of intention.

I wonder how much Iconoclastism resides in us. I think I have a bit, if I am honest with myself. I think of John Owen's words - be killing sin or it will be killing you.

When Paul was on a missionary journey and taking the gospel to other peoples he did use what he could to build a bridge to open the door to the gospel message.

But try going to a church that Paul had established and bring with you some false teachings, contrary to what he taught, and you see another Paul.
You would be taken to task immediately.

Stranger

 

[John Caldwell]

When Paul was on a missionary journey and taking the gospel to other peoples he did use what he could to build a bridge to open the door to the gospel message.

But try going to a church that Paul had established and bring with you some false teachings, contrary to what he taught, and you see another Paul.
You would be taken to task immediately.

Stranger

I agree. We are called not to judge the world, not to judge the "servant of Another" but to judge that which is in our responsibility. We judge our churches and guard against what we view to be false doctrine.

The problem is when people start attacking other people for the views they hold. Not only is this unbiblical, but this also damages our witness to others. God never blesses disobedience, but some people act as if they are God.

 

[SovereignGrace]

^^I like this.

I do not believe Calvinism at all. It just happens that on another board the staff and members determined that I fell in that category. My understanding agrees with what some of what was affirmed at Dort - not all and certainly not under the sane foundation. It was a lazy statement I should not have carried over to this forum.

And the dog, Reggie, is the best dog I've had . I am fortunate to live in a dog friendly area and take him to eat with us regularly.

Genesis 49:3-4