Does Calvinism Make God Unjust?

[Clete]

While not incorrect, per se, the use of "entities" often leads to confusion as it usually implies, to the modern ear, mutually independent "beings", as in the Godhead comprises three separate and mutually independent beings. This is untrue. The three personal subsistences are each comprised of the one being and one essence of the one God.

The word subsistence literally means “to stand under.” Thus, this word gets at the idea that while God is one in essence, there are three subsistences—also called three persons—that stand under the essence. They are part of the essence. All three have the essence of deity.

Formally speaking, subsistence is the means of individuation of essence with respect to existence.

When defining person any such definition of "person" as relates to the Trinity must preserve the unity of God's being, include an element common to both the human and divine personality, and allows the impersonal human nature of Jesus.

We may say,

Person is an independent entity, indivisible, rational, incommunicable, not sustained by another nature but possessing in itself the principle of its operation.​

Or, we may say,

The word, person, with reference to the Trinity, means the divine essence in a specific mode of existence and distinguished by this specific mode of existence from that essence and the other persons.​

When we start to confuse the early church's use of the word "person" with our own notions of "person", we ultimately end up in some form of modalistic heresy. Given the baggage the word "person" carries in today's culture, I usually refer to the personal subsistences of the Godhead until everyone is on the same page related to how the word "person" is used in Trinitarian theological discourse. If we must insist on "person", then I tend to say that "A person is a distinct bearer of an essence, hence the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are distinct persons, each with His own personal attributes, while each also shares equally the attributes of deity (i.e., the divine essence)".

Thus, the divine essence does not exist independently along with the three Persons. The divine essence has no existence outside of and apart from the three Persons. For if the divine essence did, there would be no true unity, but a division that would lead into tri-theism.

The three persons (hypostaseis / prosopoi) co-inhering in the one divine nature (ousia) exist simultaneously with one another as distinct subsistences or persons. This means that the divine essence is not at one time entirely manifest as the Father (but not in or as the Son or Spirit), and then at another moment manifest exclusively as the Son, and yet again at another time solely as the Spirit. Rather, all three persons exist simultaneously, contrary to the preceding modalistic errors.

God’s essence is common to the three Persons of the Godhead, and God’s essence is not communicated from one Person to another Person. Each Person wholly partakes of the essence of God, possessing it as one undivided essence. Portions of the essence of God are not divided up to be enjoyed by each Person—as in one-third for the Father, one-third for the son, or one-third for the Spirit—instead the whole essence is enjoyed by each, as “in him the whole fullness of deity dwells” (Col. 2:9, also John 15:16).

For each subsistence in the divine essence, each of the Persons has a distinct subsistence, such that we can say that the Son is not the Father, the Father is not the Son, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father nor the Son.

Nevertheless, we can make a distinction between the three persons of the Trinity, because each member of the Godhead has unique attributes. We say the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, but we don’t say that the Father is the Son, the Son is the Holy Spirit, or the Holy Spirit is the Father. There are distinctions between them, but the distinctions are not of the one essence of God. The distinctions are real, but they do not disturb the essence of deity.

AMR

Serious question here...

How does the Calvinist reconcile what you've stated in the above post with the doctrine of Divine Simplicity?

 

[popsthebuilder]

The point of all this, it seems to me, is that though man cannot fully grasp a thing that contains infinities, and so can associate manifestations and symbolisms. They must know that all these descriptors or manifestations were of GOD, and as such subsidiary in nature. In other words all praise for whatever thing of GOD is fine and good as long as it is known to self that this praise is ultimately to GOD alone as all things worthy of worship and praise are of GOD.

Jesus said the same repeatedly.

All praise is to GOD through and by the way of the Christ.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[Rosenritter]

The problem with this idea is that Genesis refers to God as a plurality before the 26th verse of chapter 1. In fact, God inspired Moses to refer to Him as a plurality in the very first verse of the bible.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.​

The word there for God is 'elohiym, which is the plural form of that word. And, while I'm certainly no Hebrew scholar, I have been told that the verb is singular and that the verse could be rightly translated, "In the beginning Gods, He created the heavens and the earth.". Pretty funky grammatical error for Moses to have made in the first sentence of the bible.

In any case, verse 1 certainly is prior to any "heaven hosts" that you've postulated. Further, the heavenly hosts are not referred to in such a manner anywhere else in scripture and so your idea is a grasp of straw at best.

Why not just accept what it says?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Some people think that the angels were in existence before Genesis 1:1, as previous creations. Regardless, even if one assumes the angels were created on one of the creation days, there's a point here to consider:

First, elohiym does not mean there are multiple Gods.

Second, Moses is writing with hindsight; elohiym does not stand alone, any more than a king acts without his advisers and armies. So if Moses is writing for people who are already familiar with elohiym (the God of the heavenly hosts) he would still use that term regardless of whether the heavenly hosts had been created yet or not.

Third, the English translation says "God created the heavens and the earth" and not "Gods created the heavens and the earth" and I'm inclined to think that its translated correctly. The people that we had working on that project were better skilled than you or I.

Incidentally, I do think of the angels are being created in one of those days, and God alone speaking in verse 1. I also notice that there is no "us" or "we" spoken of until Genesis 1:26. So I'm inclined to believe what it says, and assume that the creation of the angels was at least before that point.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Why not just accept what it says?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Amen.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Rose states: "The verse does seem to indicate that there were multiple people present. However, considering the great number of angels in existence that most people allow would have been created prior to Day 6, it doesn't prove that there are multiple Gods or multiple people called God."



With regards to Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in {our image,} {after our likeness:} and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

First of all Rose, Angels are not "people." They are created beings that serve God. They're not equal to God in any way. They are basically, servants and messengers of God. Therefore, He (God) wouldn't have been saying: "Let us make man in our image." The Angels are nowhere near who God is. So, He had to have been speaking about those who are "equal" to Himself. The only ones equal to Himself are, God the Son (The Word) and God the Holy Spirit. It was "God the Son" (The Word) who created everything about us. He created it all. John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

 

[marhig]

Rose states: "The verse does seem to indicate that there were multiple people present. However, considering the great number of angels in existence that most people allow would have been created prior to Day 6, it doesn't prove that there are multiple Gods or multiple people called God."



With regards to Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in {our image,} {after our likeness:} and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

First of all Rose, Angels are not "people." They are created beings that serve God. They're not equal to God in any way. They are basically, servants and messengers of God. Therefore, He (God) wouldn't have been saying: "Let us make man in our image." The Angels are nowhere near who God is. So, He had to have been speaking about those who are "equal" to Himself. The only ones equal to Himself are, God the Son (The Word) and God the Holy Spirit. It was "God the Son" (The Word) who created everything about us. He created it all. John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

But it says that God said let's make man in our image so being in his image doesn't mean equal to God if man can be in his image too.

I believe that the angels are in the image of God, when they speak in the Bible you would think it's God speaking because they only speak what God gives them to speak. So they are in his image.

Look at this in judges 2

And an angel of the Lord came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said, I made you to go up out of Egypt, and have brought you unto the land which I sware unto your fathers; and I said, I will never break my covenant with you.

And ye shall make no league with the inhabitants of this land; ye shall throw down their altars: but ye have not obeyed my voice: why have ye done this?

Wherefore I also said, I will not drive them out from before you; but they shall be as thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare unto you.

And it came to pass, when the angel of the Lord spake these words unto all the children of Israel, that the people lifted up their voice, and wept


It wasn't the angel that had done all those things, but God. So the angel was in God's image.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

But it says that God said let's make man in our image so being in his image doesn't mean equal to God if man can be in his image too.

I believe that the angels are in the image of God, when they speak in the Bible you would think it's God speaking because they only speak what God gives them to speak. So they are in his image.

Look at this in judges 2

And an angel of the Lord came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said, I made you to go up out of Egypt, and have brought you unto the land which I sware unto your fathers; and I said, I will never break my covenant with you.

And ye shall make no league with the inhabitants of this land; ye shall throw down their altars: but ye have not obeyed my voice: why have ye done this?

Wherefore I also said, I will not drive them out from before you; but they shall be as thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare unto you.

And it came to pass, when the angel of the Lord spake these words unto all the children of Israel, that the people lifted up their voice, and wept


It wasn't the angel that had done all those things, but God. So the angel was in God's image.

Neither Man nor Angel has the same "Rank" as God. Mormons believe they can become "gods." Perhaps, some "Cultists", as well. However, humanity cannot ever, under any circumstance become God.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

If people desire to believe they or the Angels can be equal to God, then, go on ahead and believe it. You have a "free will" to believe anything you want. As for me, I choose to believe what the Scriptures have to say. That's just how I roll.

 

[marhig]

Neither Man nor Angel has the same "Rank" as God. Mormons believe they can become "gods." Perhaps, some "Cultists", as well. However, humanity cannot ever, under any circumstance become God.

I'm not talking about rank or becoming a God. and I totally agree with you about that, we're just dust, and the angels are God's servants. But they can be in the image of God.

When a puddle shows a reflection of the sky, you see the sky. But the puddle isn't the sky, it just shows the image

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

I'm not talking about rank or becoming a God. and I totally agree with you about that, we're just dust. and the angels are god's servants. But they can be in the image of God.

When a puddle shows a reflection of the sky, you see the sky. But the puddle isn't the sky, it just shows the image

What are you seeking for?

 

[marhig]

What are you seeking for?

What do you mean?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

What do you mean?

What's your interpretation of "Image of God?"

 

[marhig]

What's your interpretation of "Image of God?"

When we speak the truth by the spirit and bring Gods word as it is given to us, at that time, we are in the image of God for that time. And if you live it out and show Gods unconditional love to others or his forgiveness, then you're in God's image at that time.

When the angel spoke the word of God he was in God's image.

Jesus only spoke the word of God and lived it out fully we could hear and see God completely through him he had no flesh in him and he was not of this world.

He was in the express image of God.

 

[Robert Pate]

When we speak the truth by the spirit and bring Gods word as it is given to us, at that time, we are in the image of God for that time. And if you live it out and show Gods unconditional love to others or his forgiveness, then you're in God's image at that time.

When the angel spoke the word of God he was in God's image.

Jesus only spoke the word of God and lived it out fully we could hear and see God completely through him he had no flesh in him and he was not of this world.

He was in the express image of God.

Jesus and Jesus alone was the express image of God.

We are created in the image of God, but we do not posses the attributes of God.

 

[Rosenritter]

Rose states: "The verse does seem to indicate that there were multiple people present. However, considering the great number of angels in existence that most people allow would have been created prior to Day 6, it doesn't prove that there are multiple Gods or multiple people called God."



With regards to Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in {our image,} {after our likeness:} and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

First of all Rose, Angels are not "people." They are created beings that serve God. They're not equal to God in any way. They are basically, servants and messengers of God. Therefore, He (God) wouldn't have been saying: "Let us make man in our image." The Angels are nowhere near who God is. So, He had to have been speaking about those who are "equal" to Himself. The only ones equal to Himself are, God the Son (The Word) and God the Holy Spirit. It was "God the Son" (The Word) who created everything about us. He created it all. John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Why would you say that angels aren't people?

1) They are unique individuals with unique names, like Michael (Jude 1:9) and Gabriel (Luke 1:26)
2) They have free will, to either serve God or rebel (see Revelation 12:7-9)
3) They will be judged according to their actions (see Ezekiel 28:12-19, Isaiah 14:4-20, Matthew 8:29)
4) God calls them before his throne to talk with them (Job 1:6)
5) God calls them together to ask their opinion on how to solve problems (1 Kings 22:19-22, 2 Chronicles 18:18-21)

Please pay particular attention to the passages from Kings and Chronicles. I mean actually open up your bible (or E-sword program) and read the passage. God actually DOES talk to his creation and ask for suggestions. He doesn't have a man-style complex that he is so "superior" that he cannot talk to or with his "subjects."

So I'm not sure what definition you are using for "people" in this sense. Angels are certainly not robots and are higher than animals. Scripture even says that they are higher than men, which are "a little lower than the angels" (Psalm 8:5, Hebrews 2:7-9).

This has nothing to do with whether angels or men are equal to God. How do you figure God created man in his image? and if man was created in the image of God, under what basis would you say that angels were created after some other image? The angels were created first and were present when creation was completed (see Job 38:7).

Perhaps it might help if you shared what you believe "created in the image of God" means, to you. I suspect that no matter what attribute (or attributes) you may pick, I could also point to scripture to demonstrate that angels are also made in that same image.

And as such, yes, "let us create man in our image, after our likeness" could very well have been spoken by God, to his host of created angels, when he chose to create mankind to populate the physical world that he had created. I'm not going to say that it is an absolute proof, but I don't see how one could honestly dismiss it as a possibility.

 

[Rosenritter]

But it says that God said let's make man in our image so being in his image doesn't mean equal to God if man can be in his image too.

I believe that the angels are in the image of God, when they speak in the Bible you would think it's God speaking because they only speak what God gives them to speak. So they are in his image.

Look at this in judges 2

And an angel of the Lord came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said, I made you to go up out of Egypt, and have brought you unto the land which I sware unto your fathers; and I said, I will never break my covenant with you.

And ye shall make no league with the inhabitants of this land; ye shall throw down their altars: but ye have not obeyed my voice: why have ye done this?

Wherefore I also said, I will not drive them out from before you; but they shall be as thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare unto you.

And it came to pass, when the angel of the Lord spake these words unto all the children of Israel, that the people lifted up their voice, and wept


It wasn't the angel that had done all those things, but God. So the angel was in God's image.

You forgot something Marhig. The other explanation is that the angel of the Lord that spoke those things actually was God himself, personally. It's actually strongly indicated by the context.

 

[Rosenritter]

Neither Man nor Angel has the same "Rank" as God. Mormons believe they can become "gods." Perhaps, some "Cultists", as well. However, humanity cannot ever, under any circumstance become God.

Marhig didn't say that, Grosnick. She actually said the opposite. Here's what she said,

... so being in his image doesn't mean equal to God if man can be in his image too.

No sense arguing against something that someone didn't say.

 

[Rosenritter]

What's your interpretation of "Image of God?"

Grosnick, would you mind answering that question yourself? I sort of asked that a couple minutes ago but I don't want it lost in text. What do you figure "in the image of God he made them" means? Here's the source text:

Genesis 1:27 KJV
(27) So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Grosnick, would you mind answering that question yourself? I sort of asked that a couple minutes ago but I don't want it lost in text. What do you figure "in the image of God he made them" means? Here's the source text:

Genesis 1:27 KJV
(27) So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

I'm not interested in giving my "opinion" on that question. It doesn't really interest me at this time. You may draw your own conclusions why I choose not to delve into that discussion, as I know you will.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Marhig didn't say that, Grosnick. She actually said the opposite. Here's what she said,



No sense arguing against something that someone didn't say.

:chuckle: I just "dismissed" you with this little smiley guy.