Advanced Search
Recent Posts
Site Statistics
Who's Online
Forum Rules
Bible Resources
• Bible Study Aids
• Bible Devotionals
• Audio Sermons
• ChristiansUnite Blogs
• Christian Forums
• Facebook Apps
Web Search
• Christian Family Sites
• Top Christian Sites
• Christian RSS Feeds
Family Life
• Christian Finance
• ChristiansUnite KIDS
• Christian Magazines
• Christian Book Store
• Christian News
• Christian Columns
• Christian Song Lyrics
• Christian Mailing Lists
• Christian Singles
• Christian Classifieds
• Free Christian Clipart
• Christian Wallpaper
Fun Stuff
• Clean Christian Jokes
• Bible Trivia Quiz
• Online Video Games
• Bible Crosswords
• Christian Guestbooks
• Banner Exchange
• Dynamic Content

Subscribe to our Free Newsletter.
Enter your email address:

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 05, 2023, 01:28:07 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Our Lord Jesus Christ loves you.
286661 Posts in 27568 Topics by 3790 Members
Latest Member: Goodwin
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  ChristiansUnite Forums
|-+  Theology
| |-+  General Theology (Moderator: admin)
| | |-+  Calvinism--TULIP
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Calvinism--TULIP  (Read 17279 times)
Offline Offline

Posts: 6

I'm a llama!

View Profile
« Reply #75 on: July 08, 2003, 08:42:59 PM »

Raising hand....

As an Orthodox Christian, I am wondering why you two keep discussing the veneration of icons and material things (dare I bring up relics of saints?) by using texts from the OT.

Pnotc, you probably know by now (you clever man) that the reason the Church can honors icons and "matter" is because God chose to take on flesh in the incarnation.  He, who was un-representable, chose to be "representable".  To take on flesh, have a particular eye color, eat, sleep, get tired, suffer and die.

We honor icons as old family members who are with the Lord now but lived lives worthy of remembrance.

But I am not going to get into it again.  I pray that God will reveal Himself to you.

Offline Offline

Posts: 6

I'm a llama!

View Profile
« Reply #76 on: July 08, 2003, 08:53:56 PM »

From a sermon by an Orthodox priest (presbyter)

Glory to Jesus Christ! Glory forever!
Once again, the Lord has blessed us to join with one another and with Orthodox Christians throughout the world in celebrating the Sunday of the Triumph of Orthodoxy-the triumph of the True Faith. Historically, the feast of the Church's triumph over the iconoclasts coincides with the first Sunday of Great Lent. And so, for over a thousand years, Orthodox Christians have gathered on this day to proclaim, with one voice, the relationship between the veneration of the holy icons and the Church's teaching on the incarnation of the Son of God. On this day the Church draws our attention to the icon as a vital witness to the fundamental Christian teaching that God became man and has united Himself to us so that the human person might be lifted up and united with God.

Today's celebration reminds us that, by becoming man, the Son of God descends to us so we might ascend with Him into the Glory of His Kingdom. Through His incarnation by the Holy Spirit in the most-pure womb of the Virgin Mary, the invisible and uncontainable Son of the Father has become visible and therefore can be depicted by artistic means. Consequently, in the lines and colors of all the sacred icons-of Christ, of the Theotokos, or of the saints-we behold the image of a transfigured person who in turn reveals the face of Jesus Christ. Every icon whether of a man or woman, depicts the incarnate Savior who is the perfect "image of the invisible God" (Col. 1:15).

The feast of the Triumph of Orthodoxy-the feast of the icon-has its origins in a long-drawn-out theological controversy that spanned the 8th and 9th centuries. But this controversy was not limited to theologians or scholars, to their classrooms or meeting halls. Indeed, the controversy concerning the veneration of icons affected all classes of individuals and threatened the very unity of the Church. The defenders of the Orthodox Faith understood that iconoclasm-the teachings of those who opposed the making and veneration of icons-was a movement that aggressively sought to limit and ultimately overthrow the very mission and purpose of the Church by redefining and distorting our understanding of Christ as "the Word made flesh." Saint Nicephorus of Constantinople, one of the great defenders of the icon during the second wave of iconoclasm, regarded the rejection of the sacred image as a rejection of the Church's Orthodox teaching on the incarnation itself. In this venerable patriarch of Constantinople, the double rejection of image and incarnation expressed a violent infidelity to the will of the Father and the activity of the Holy Spirit. In clear and simple terms he tells his opponents that because of the attack against the icon, because of a misinterpretation of the Church's teaching concerning the incarnation, "the good will of the Father has remained without result; the cooperation of the Spirit has been ineffective; and the apostolic preaching has been quenched."

Celebrating the victory of the icon we celebrate the victory of Christ's incarnation, death and resurrection over the powers of sin and mortality. The Church is the new creation. It is the living and glorified body of Christ. The Church is the pillar and ground of truth (1 Tim 3:15) by which all are called to be "saved and to come to the knowledge of the Truth" (1 Tim 2:4).


Offline Offline

Posts: 43

View Profile
« Reply #77 on: July 09, 2003, 12:16:46 AM »

“You said non-denominational, if you would have said, Weslyan, or Methodist, with another name, then we would have understood.”

Mountain Park is a non-denominational church.  They are not part of a denomination.  The Church of God (Anderson) does not regard itself as a denomination and, in fact, purposely refuses to adopt a doctrinal statement for that very reason.  They do not exercise control over their local churches – they are a resource and fellowship connection, not a denomination.  I’m not sure who “we” are, but it is clear that you leapt to your own conclusions based on your own assumptions.  

”These try to pass off as non-denominational, but their theology, make them denominational..”

If holding to Wesleyan-Arminian theology makes Church of God “denominational”, then holding to Calvinist theology makes your church just as denominated, and you’re just as “deceptive” as you accuse me of being.

”So, you should have used more precise words.”

This is rich!  You leap to false conclusions based on your own presuppositions, and its my fault?!  I’m almost speechless at the egotism present in the remark.  But then again, I’ve been subject to your posts for some time now, so I’m kind of used to it.  Let me ask you something, though.  Given my obvious disdain and abhorrence of Calvinist theology, does it really make sense that I would attend a church that taught and believed it?  Clearly it doesn’t.  So why would you come to that conclusion in the first place?  I have a feeling I know the answer, but I’m hoping its not true.  

One thing, though, that really strikes me as very funny is the fact that you spend an entire post railing at me for being “deceptive” and don’t even apologize to me when it turns out you were entirely and utterly wrong.  As much as I disagree with you on so many issues, I would at least apologize to you if I had done the same thing.  In fact, I think just about anyone else on this forum would have proffered up some kind of mea culpa, without trying to blame me for their misreading.  So why haven’t you?

Did you delete a post?  Or was that on the other thread?  I'm responding to it here if it was on the other thread.  

”Are you likening yourself to a two year old child still, pooping whereever it please you??”

Is it too difficult a question for you?  Are you really having that hard a time answering what I thought was a very straightforward question?  So come on, be brave, answer the question.  What would you do?

Since your having a problem with it, let me lay out a little story, just to avoid any confusion.  I call it “Petro has a kid.”

Petro gets married, and gets his wife pregnant.  9 months later, she has a beautiful baby (insert gender here).  A few days later, Petro and Mrs. Petro take little (insert baby’s name) home.  Later, exactly 2 weeks to the minute after little baby (insert name) was born, Petro lays him/her on the floor in the living room.  The baby is not wearing a diaper.  Now, Petro looks little (insert name) square in the eye and states in no uncertain terms that he does not want the baby to poop on the floor.  He states it several times and even goes so far as to say he hates poop on the floor so much that he cannot even stand to look at it.  Petro leaves the room to go fix a sandwich or something.  He comes back a few minutes later, and the baby, contrary to his express and explicit wishes, has pooped on the floor.  Petro is left with a variety of options in dealing with this mess, so he…

This is where you finish the story Petro – what do you do?  

”You said, You were 33 years old bible school graduate, as I recall, by know you ought to be a teacher  (remember you taught bible to high school and college aged young people)”

Actually, I never said anything even remotely resembling the first part.  I’m 25 and a graduate from a “secular liberal humanist” school, remember?  And yes, I’ve taught high school and college Bible studies.

”and yet from what you would teach herein, it appears you need to be taught the first principles of of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk.”

Its interesting how Calvinism contains the first principles of the oracles of God when it wasn’t formulated until 15 or so centuries after Christ walked this Earth.  Its interesting how no church father before or since Augustine believed it, and how everyone, including those who lived and worked with Paul and the rest of the apostles, got it all completely wrong from the get-go.  See, the fact is, the tenets of Calvinism don’t hold up to historical scrutiny.  If it was true, and part of a “reformation”, one would expect to see that at some very early point, the teachings of the church matched it.  At some later point those teachings would have changed, only to be rediscovered and re-implemented by Calvin and his antecessors.  However, that’s not the case.  Aside from the aberration of Augustine, no one believed or taught as you do in church history.  The churches the disciples and apostles planted didn’t believe it, the church that spread throughout the world didn’t teach it – so how can it contain the first principles when it is clearly an innovation?

“..and are become such as have need of…a spell checker and a grammar guide…”  Roll Eyes

”This is evidenced by your wanderings, from the Wesleyan (non-denominational camp) to nearly the opposite end of the spectrum of mans version of christondom, Orhtodoxy, because of every wind of doctrine, that catches yopur fancy.”

I said Mountain Park had more in common with Wesleyan-Arminianism, not that believed or taught exactly that.  But I would hardly call Orthodoxy the opposite end of the spectrum – at least not as it relates to the economy of salvation.  There are differences, to be sure, but they do have some pretty good parallels in that area.

”You have to admit you have gone a long way, from praying directly to God, through Jesus, to praying to God, through dead saints, which can't hear...............you, anyhow.”

Why the extended ellipsis at the end of so many of your sentences?  You do it so often, I just have to ask.  Also, you have to admit you, too, have gone a long way, from Catholicism to an innovation with no historical or biblical merit………………anyhow.  

And actually, in my Bible study the last few days, I’ve come across some verses that are very relevant to this particular discussion.  Unfortunately, I have my Intro to Orthodoxy class tonight, so I’ll have to post them tomorrow.  
Gold Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 1535

I'm a llama!

View Profile
« Reply #78 on: July 10, 2003, 03:23:47 AM »

Well, pnotc,

I guess you can give us the poop, whether we want it or not..



Offline Offline

Posts: 43

View Profile
« Reply #79 on: July 13, 2003, 11:42:28 PM »

Pathetic.  Absolutely pathetic.  

I was hoping if I gave you a couple of days, you'd actually respond to my post.  I'm not too surprised that you didn't.
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

More From ChristiansUnite...    About Us | Privacy Policy | | ChristiansUnite.com Site Map | Statement of Beliefs

Copyright © 1999-2019 ChristiansUnite.com. All rights reserved.
Please send your questions, comments, or bug reports to the

Powered by SMF 1.1 RC2 | SMF © 2001-2005, Lewis Media