Here's greatest rebuttal line for Atheists and some Calvinists on fallen Christians from the Ghost of Christmas Present "There are some upon this earth of yours,” returned the Spirit, “who lay claim to know us, and who do their deeds of passion, pride, ill-will, hatred, envy, bigotry, and selfishness in our name, who are as strange to us and all our kith and kin, as if they had never lived. Remember that, and charge their doings on themselves, not us.” Our deeds belong to us. Let us be wary.
You would first have to acknowledge the original authors of "A Christmas Carol." I have identified them as Mathew Franklin Whittier, younger brother of Quaker poet John Greenleaf Whittier, and his wife, Abby Poyen Whittier. Abby was first cousin to Charles Poyen, who introduced Mesmerism to America. She was raised French Catholic, but she also embraced other spiritual and philosophical traditions, being a mystic and what one might term, today, a Spiritualist. It was her intention that all the supernatural elements in the "Carol" be authentic. It was only turned into a "ghost story" by Dickens, who commercialized and secularized it to make a quick buck. As regards Calvinism, where one sees that Tiny Tim adds, "God bless us, everyone," this was Abby's nod to Universalism. But there is a great deal more of her esoteric Christianity which Dickens left in his version, not knowing the difference between authentic occultism and fantasy. Abby's designation of the chapters as "Staves" had a double meaning. A "stave" can be a musical phrase (Abby was a musician), but it can also mean a rung on a ladder. Abby conceived of the "Carol" as a means to vicariously take each reader through a conversion experience, such that each "stave" was a rung on a ladder leading to that experience. Dickens was so dense and worldly that he never understood the hidden meaning.
Merry Christmas, PP, and thanks for the thoughtful content! May God bless your channel and continue to grow your audience! As I mentioned to our mutual friend Dom Enyart, your videos (like his!) tend to start with a frame already in place: Calvinists wearing the black cowboy hats and y'all wearing the white hats. But that's an external critique, not an internal one. The first question is whether you've assigned the hats properly. Maybe the Calvinists are the white hats, after all?! I love how my Calvinism flows from a sustained, systematic study of the scriptures. You talk about harsh realities in Calvinism as if we Calvinists brought "the harsh" unnecessarily and improperly. I would like to ask my "non-harsh" brothers which scriptures you have been reading that your theology doesn't make the same kind of connections?! For one example, consider this passage from Jeremiah 15: "Then the Lord said to me, “Even if Moses and Samuel stood before me pleading for these people, I wouldn’t help them. Away with them! Get them out of my sight! And if they say to you, ‘But where can we go?’ tell them, ‘This is what the Lord says: ‘Those who are destined for death, to death; those who are destined for war, to war; those who are destined for famine, to famine; those who are destined for captivity, to captivity.’" This is a harsh message for the recipients, no doubt about it; God sets his face in judgment against his people in the Kingdom of Judah at this time in judgment for their sins. But as harsh as this reality is, it is also an objective good: God is right to judge sin abrasively, just as he is right when he chooses to forgive and pardon. It's a Calvinist conclusion that such outcomes are worthy of rejoicing in, even if we wince in godly fear at the implications for those actually being judged. It's harsh but a wholesome and good harsh. "And I know that whatever God does is final. Nothing can be added to it or taken from it. God’s purpose is that people should fear him." Ecclesiastes 3 Great content, and once again, Merry Christmas! Kind Calvinist regards, JC Bear!
@@UnfrozenCavemanLawyer-xq1qi // the thing He decreed Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer, you are one of my heroes! "I'm just a simple caveman...!" Well, I would say "the thing he decreed compatibly": God is the ultimate cause of all things, yet not the efficient cause of all things, see Genesis 50 20. God decreed Joseph's slavery, yet Joseph's brothers actually sold him out. Also Matthew 27 4: God decreed Christ's crucifixion, yet Judas actually betrayed him.
![Jonathan Cahn SHOCKING VISION 🚨 [Signs You Can't Ignore] SOMETHING TERRIBLE IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN!](/img/n.gif)
"Are these the things that may be?"
Muppet Christmas Carol is the GOAT. 😎🐐
'When love is gone' makes me tear up every time. I think it's seeing Michael Caine cry.
@ Tear up? I WEEP.
And for me, it’s definitely seeing MC cry. He’s the cornerstone of the movie’s greatness. 🥹
Here's greatest rebuttal line for Atheists and some Calvinists on fallen Christians from the Ghost of Christmas Present "There are some upon this earth of yours,” returned the Spirit, “who lay claim to know us, and who do their deeds of passion, pride, ill-will, hatred, envy, bigotry, and selfishness in our name, who are as strange to us and all our kith and kin, as if they had never lived. Remember that, and charge their doings on themselves, not us.” Our deeds belong to us. Let us be wary.
I read it very year one of the greatest work of fiction. I also love the George C. Scott and Alister Sim versions.
You would first have to acknowledge the original authors of "A Christmas Carol." I have identified them as Mathew Franklin Whittier, younger brother of Quaker poet John Greenleaf Whittier, and his wife, Abby Poyen Whittier. Abby was first cousin to Charles Poyen, who introduced Mesmerism to America. She was raised French Catholic, but she also embraced other spiritual and philosophical traditions, being a mystic and what one might term, today, a Spiritualist. It was her intention that all the supernatural elements in the "Carol" be authentic. It was only turned into a "ghost story" by Dickens, who commercialized and secularized it to make a quick buck. As regards Calvinism, where one sees that Tiny Tim adds, "God bless us, everyone," this was Abby's nod to Universalism. But there is a great deal more of her esoteric Christianity which Dickens left in his version, not knowing the difference between authentic occultism and fantasy. Abby's designation of the chapters as "Staves" had a double meaning. A "stave" can be a musical phrase (Abby was a musician), but it can also mean a rung on a ladder. Abby conceived of the "Carol" as a means to vicariously take each reader through a conversion experience, such that each "stave" was a rung on a ladder leading to that experience. Dickens was so dense and worldly that he never understood the hidden meaning.
@@ssake1_IAL_Research All I know is Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol” is based ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Merry Christmas, PP, and thanks for the thoughtful content! May God bless your channel and continue to grow your audience!
As I mentioned to our mutual friend Dom Enyart, your videos (like his!) tend to start with a frame already in place: Calvinists wearing the black cowboy hats and y'all wearing the white hats. But that's an external critique, not an internal one. The first question is whether you've assigned the hats properly. Maybe the Calvinists are the white hats, after all?!
I love how my Calvinism flows from a sustained, systematic study of the scriptures. You talk about harsh realities in Calvinism as if we Calvinists brought "the harsh" unnecessarily and improperly. I would like to ask my "non-harsh" brothers which scriptures you have been reading that your theology doesn't make the same kind of connections?!
For one example, consider this passage from Jeremiah 15:
"Then the Lord said to me, “Even if Moses and Samuel stood before me pleading for these people, I wouldn’t help them. Away with them! Get them out of my sight! And if they say to you, ‘But where can we go?’ tell them, ‘This is what the Lord says:
‘Those who are destined for death, to death;
those who are destined for war, to war;
those who are destined for famine, to famine;
those who are destined for captivity, to captivity.’"
This is a harsh message for the recipients, no doubt about it; God sets his face in judgment against his people in the Kingdom of Judah at this time in judgment for their sins. But as harsh as this reality is, it is also an objective good: God is right to judge sin abrasively, just as he is right when he chooses to forgive and pardon. It's a Calvinist conclusion that such outcomes are worthy of rejoicing in, even if we wince in godly fear at the implications for those actually being judged. It's harsh but a wholesome and good harsh.
"And I know that whatever God does is final. Nothing can be added to it or taken from it. God’s purpose is that people should fear him."
Ecclesiastes 3
Great content, and once again, Merry Christmas! Kind Calvinist regards, JC Bear!
"God is right to judge sin abrasively.."
..the thing He decreed.
Right
@@UnfrozenCavemanLawyer-xq1qi // the thing He decreed
Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer, you are one of my heroes! "I'm just a simple caveman...!"
Well, I would say "the thing he decreed compatibly": God is the ultimate cause of all things, yet not the efficient cause of all things, see Genesis 50 20. God decreed Joseph's slavery, yet Joseph's brothers actually sold him out. Also Matthew 27 4: God decreed Christ's crucifixion, yet Judas actually betrayed him.
But I'm a Molinist, don't leave me out.
The third spirit was actually the Ghost of Middle Knowledge
Molinismobly works in tge story if the entire story takes place before creation.
Marley was dead, to begin with.