No, not "the all," just all. Meaning that we cannot speak about "being in general" because there are two distinct *kinds* of being: Creator (infinite, eternal, unchangeable, self-existent, etc) and his creation (finite, temporal, changeable, dependent). God is not like us only "more so," we're not on the same scale at all. What makes the creature differ from his creator is not merely a matter of *degree*.
Look at what Aquinas says about univocal, equivocal, and analogical knowledge. That gets at it a bit too.
Specifically, see what the Scriptures say about the Creator/creature distinction ("all is two") vs. what the monist pagans say ("all is one"). Hint: the pagans say creation is an aspect of the essence of God, rather than an utterly distinct and dependent "work of his hands."
If you'd like to understand the position better, I would point you to Scripture. Genesis 1-3, then the gospel of John, then the Epistle to the Colossians, then the Epistle to the Romans.
Worshipping Christ Jesus in no way approximates what is meant by "worshipping an aspect of the creation."
You might also pick up Peter Jones, Identity Theft.
>And seek the peace of the city whither I have caused you to be carried away captives, and pray unto the LORD for it: for in the peace thereof shall ye have peace.
[Jeremiah 29:7 KJV](http://blb.org/kjv/jer/29/7/), KJV
Ours is a politics of pilgrimmage.
God is (numerically) one (not only operating but) existing eternally in three persons. Christ is one person with two natures. To worship one of the persons is to worship the "whole" God.
It is worse to offend God than it is to offend our neighbor (since He is greater than we are).
However, since our neighbor is made in His image, we should offend neither -- unless it's with the truth.
The Son of God (second person of the Triune God), as God, is "co-creator" - see John 1 and Colossians 1.
The Son of God took on flesh and became the man, Jesus Christ - see John 1 again. "In becoming what he was not, he did not cease to be what he always was."
Jesus, the man, received worship that was only appropriate to give to God.
Someone who worships the creation (especially the self) instead of the Creator. See Romans 1. Good question.
I think we've (or maybe only I have) mischaracterized Jesus' call to turn the other cheek as weak, as rolling over, as a rejection of the duty of self-defense (8th commandment).
In the man Jesus Christ, both Justice and Mercy meet together. Perfect Justice satisfied and yet graciously done in our place--the classic doctine of "penal substitionary atonement." So I think it must be something deeper than a denial of one's individual rights.
Hear me out.
If the first slap incurs a debt of retributive justice--meaning that, in the terms of 'eye for an eye', the offender is now due a slap from the offended in order to even the scales, then it seems to make more sense that Christ's exemplary call is to have the offended party pay off the debt of the offender. "The chastisement that brought *us* peace was laid upon *him* and by *his* stripes *we* are healed."
That is not weakness. That is both justice satisfied and an exhibition of overwhelming grace toward the offender--a display of immovable love that ought to make him ashamed. Strength magnfied beyond one's self.
[Romans 12:20-2](http://blb.org/kjv/rom/12/20-21/), KJV
(I think I first heard this interpretation from William Ian Miller in his fascinating book, Eye for an Eye.)
#Reformed #Christian #grownostr
"Turn the other cheek" is not pacifist, nor is it incompatible with the duty of justice.
Grace neither ignores, overrules, nor counteracts justice--it goes far, far beyond it. Grace satifies justice on behalf of the guilty.
That's the gospel.
Paganism is a fiat faith. Hopeless, aimless, and terminal.
I don't stand up and cheer at sportsball games.
*this* is where I go wild. Heck yes.
It is not "fear" but the love of Christ that compels us to persuade people away from error and toward the truth. We are sinnersall.--"beggars telling other beggars where to find bread."
Enough with the name-calling and marshalling of leftist linguistic trickery.
But I do acknowledge that ultimately it's Christ or paganism. We all must choose.
I think we've (or maybe only I have) mischaracterized Jesus' call to turn the other cheek as weak, as rolling over, as a rejection of the duty of self-defense (8th commandment).
In the man Jesus Christ, both Justice and Mercy meet together. Perfect Justice satisfied and yet graciously done in our place--the classic doctine of "penal substitionary atonement." So I think it must be something deeper than a denial of one's individual rights.
Hear me out.
If the first slap incurs a debt of retributive justice--meaning that, in the terms of 'eye for an eye', the offender is now due a slap from the offended in order to even the scales, then it seems to make more sense that Christ's exemplary call is to have the offended party pay off the debt of the offender. "The chastisement that brought *us* peace was laid upon *him* and by *his* stripes *we* are healed."
That is not weakness. That is both justice satisfied and an exhibition of overwhelming grace toward the offender--a display of immovable love that ought to make him ashamed. Strength magnfied beyond one's self.
[Romans 12:20-2](http://blb.org/kjv/rom/12/20-21/), KJV
(I think I first heard this interpretation from William Ian Miller in his fascinating book, Eye for an Eye.)
#Reformed #Christian #grownostr
I’m usually inclined to dunk on Reason magazine, but I appreciated this article.
https://reason.com/2023/06/18/before-there-was-christian-nationalism-there-was-christian-anarchism
No king but Christ
Thank you. Great article.
JESUS IS LORD (CAESAR IS NOT)
NO KING BUT CHRIST
I will neither bow to the pagans nor join the ranks of the theocrats.
Classical Liberalism was a happy compromise.
I pray for its peaceful return.
LOL
I've heard that the political terms came from the seating arangements in pre revolutionary French parliament--but I think it must go back much further than that.
Yes, #pleb, Western Culture was *targeted* many years ago, we're way past that question.
'sinister' literally means of the left or left-handed
'dexterous' means of the right or right-handed
would love to know how these words and ideas came to mean this, and which came first
#etymology #words
The term "expressive individualism" and the ideology it represents are from Alistair McIntyre, [After Virtue](https://amzn.to/3HK1t8X).