Pope: Everyone, Even Atheists, Want to See the Face of God

Asia News ^ | 1/16/13

[marshmallow]

General audience, Benedict XVI defines the Incarnation as "something unimaginable, the face of God can be seen, the process that began with Abraham is fulfilled." The Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, he asks "for the great gift" to "proclaim together that Jesus is the Savior of the world."

Vatican City (AsiaNews) - "The desire to know the face of God is in every man, even the atheists," but this desire is only realized by following Christ, in whom, in the Incarnation, "something unimaginable took place, the journey that began with Abraham is fulfilled. He is the Son, the fullness of all Revelation; the mediator who shows us the face of God. "

And "to proclaim together that Jesus is the Saviour of the world" Benedict XVI asked for incessant prayers for "the great gift" of Christian unity in the forthcoming week, which begins on the 18th of this month.

Previously, in his catechesis, he again reflected on the meaning of Christmas, in a commentary on John's Gospel in which the apostle Philip asks Jesus to show them the Father. The answer of Jesus, "introduces us to the heart of the Church's Christological faith; For the Lord says: "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father" (Jn 14:9).This expression summarizes the novelty of the New Testament, the novelty that appeared in the cave of Bethlehem: God can be seen, he showed his face is visible in Jesus Christ".

The theme of "seeking the face of God" is present throughout the Old Testament, so much so that the Hebrew term "face", occurs no less than 400 times, 100 of which refer to God." The of Jewish religion which the religion forbids all images, "for God can not be depicted," and "can not be reduced to an object," tells us that "God...

[CynicalBear]

It’s amazing isn’t it? The dependence on some leader other than Christ is astounding.

[xzins]

Cults do say that they only follow scripture. It’s not uncommon at all, CB. You’re either inexperienced, not followed such things, or are again obfuscating

So far as the church of Philadelphia is concerned, I do think that the 7 churches of Rev represent types through the ages, so its type is: Philadelphian.

[presently no screen name]

Yep, astounding indeed. Man’s word over God’s Word - Gen 3 all over again for them as they are unteachable and refuse to learn.

And we say we believe in Scripture alone and It’s our final authority and some still want to know what we believe.

[CynicalBear]

>> Cults do say that they only follow scripture.<<

Not without an intermediary human “interpreter” they don’t. Name one cult who does not have as it’s authority a human between the members and scripture.

>>So far as the church of Philadelphia is concerned, I do think that the 7 churches of Rev represent types through the ages, so its type is: Philadelphian.<<

I asked what “denomination” the church at Philadelphia was. You seem to demand that churches must belong to some denomination. So the faithful church at Philadelphia is what denomination exactly?

[presently no screen name]

Cults do say that they only... and you believe them. That says a lot about how easily 'man' can sway you.

Cult are not Holy Spirit filled - they follow 'man' who is the head of their cult, not Jesus. So You’re either inexperienced, not followed such things, or are again obfuscating.

It's not wise to believe cults and what they say they do, but that didn't stop you from gobbling it up and repeating it in your quest to 'try' to denounce a born again Christian freeper, did it?

"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."

HEED The Word alone or be wrong every time. Your *choice*.

JESUS THE WORD is The FINAL Authority.

[xzins]

As I said, CB, the 7 churches of Revelation are 7 types of churches beginning with that particular church at John’s time of writing. If there were not differences, then the Lord wouldn’t have addressed 7 of them, now would He?

So, in their day they were “The Philadelphian” variety.

If you were to ask me which churches today are most similar to that Philadelphian Church, I’d probably say “Christian and Missionary Alliance” and “Calvary Chapels”

I don’t know your group, because you won’t describe it, so maybe yours would fit in there, but the Philadelphian type is an exclusive group, so I doubt yours will fit.

[xzins]

As I said, CB, the 7 churches of Revelation are 7 types of churches beginning with that particular church at John’s time of writing. If there were not differences, then the Lord wouldn’t have addressed 7 of them, now would He?

So, in their day they were “The Philadelphian” variety.

If you were to ask me which churches today are most similar to that Philadelphian Church, I’d probably say “Christian and Missionary Alliance” and “Calvary Chapels”

I don’t know your group, because you won’t describe it, so maybe yours would fit in there, but the Philadelphian type is an exclusive group, so I doubt yours will fit.

[xzins]

Sure cults say they follow scripture without reference a human intermediary.

Do people in the church you attend ever refer to your name at all?

[xzins]

gobbling it up and repeating it in your quest to 'try' to denounce

You are a piece of work, aren't you? LOL.

I haven't "denounced" anyone. I've said they are obfuscating. They are.

However, I think at this point that:

1. They are non-Trinitarian.

2. Self-appointed "messianic-ish"

3. Church polity of independent, local, "house-only" churches

That's what I've got so far from what you all have shared, as best as you all have been able. I have discerned that you all are very fearful.

I'm awaiting an answer on their doctrine of baptism.

[CynicalBear]

>>If you were to ask me which churches today are most similar to that Philadelphian Church, I’d probably say “Christian and Missionary Alliance” and “Calvary Chapels”<<

No, I didn’t ask “which churches of today” you would somehow through some sort of conjecture determine were “types” of churches that are “most similar” to the church at Philadephia. I asked which “denomination” the original church at Philadelphia belonged to. If belonging or affiliated with some denomination is as important as you seem to imply surely they were in place at the time of the writing of Revelation. Maybe you could tell me the denomination of any of the seven churches. Or in lieu of a donomination perhaps the “creeds” or “confessions” they used.

>>I don’t know your group, because you won’t describe it,<<

I have described it many times. It’s the group that Christ calls the “bride”, “The Body of Christ” or “the ekklēsias” the whole body of believers. There is no division in that body. There are no “separate denominations”. They are one body of all believers. Divisions or “denominations” are man’s construct, not God’s. Demand division if you must but don’t expect me to.

[CynicalBear]

>>Sure cults say they follow scripture without reference a human intermediary.<<

Once again. Name one. Prove your point.

[xzins]

A denomination is just a grouping of folks like-minded about doctrine and/or practice.

That describes Philadelphia....which incidentally was an entire city.

So, I repeat, they were Philadelphian. And since Revelation was written circa 95 AD in the opinion of many, me included, and amidst persecution, there wasn’t a real clamoring to be identified with the Philadelphians...or the Smyrnans, for that matter.

A cult that doesn’t reference its leader: your church

The Christian Identity Movement is one. BTW, Since you only identify yourself and your compatriots as “Christian” and refuse to identify yourself by any reference to any specific known body of believers, how does your fellowship of believers differ from the Christian Identity Movement?

[CynicalBear]

>>I've said they are obfuscating. They are.<<

Well, let’s try this approach. Which “denomination” or anyone who profess Jesus as Lord and Savior would you suggest are not part of the “body of Christ”? And must anyone who professes Jesus as Lord and Savior belong to one of your approved “denominations”?

[metmom]

CB, MM, and PNSN: Speaking for yourself, Do you believe in the historic Christian doctrine of the Trinity?

I believe in Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

Romans 10:6-13 6 But the righteousness based on faith says, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 “or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).

8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); 9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. 11 For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. 13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

And just who understands the Trinity well enough that our agreement or lack thereof is some kind of litmus test of our faith, or lack thereof?

The finite, mortal mind is not capable of understanding the Godhead. It's pointless to demand an adherence to something no one can explain and no one can fully understand to determine if a person is in a cult or not.

Since the portrayal of the Trinity by finite, mortal minds is by its very nature incomplete and inaccurate, I am not going to commit to any MAN'S understanding of it because it is by default not correct.

The Scriptural criteria for salvation is faith in Jesus Christ; believe with your heart and confess with your mouth.

[metmom]

I’m impressed. You’ve actually heard of the C&MA.

[CynicalBear]

>>They are non-Trinitarian.<<

Did someone add the words “and understand and believe what the trinity is” to what Paul and Silas told the jailor?

>>I have discerned that you all are very fearful.<<

Who here has been afraid to profess the name of Jesus? Surely you are not professing that an adherence or belief in a “denomination” is prerequisite for salvation are you?

>>I'm awaiting an answer on their doctrine of baptism.<<

Which “doctrine of baptism”. The one of the Catholics? The one of the Baptists? The one that says it’s the water that washes away sins? Which doctrine of baptism are you asking about?

Romans 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. 3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. 4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Rom. 3:28-30, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one."

Rom. 4:5, "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness,"

Hebrews 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

If faith only is required for justification, sanctification, righteousness, and being “perfected forever” are you going to say that all those statements are wrong, in error, or just lies or half truths?

John tells us that if we confess our sins Jesus is faithful to forgive our sins.

1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Did John or the others forget to include the “doctrine of baptism”?

[metmom]

What a bunch of rot. I'm a Methodist. Now track me down. I'll give you until noon Monday, EST.

Yeah, well you're entitled to your opinion. I live in an area of the state that's too well connected.

The Catholics didn't like it any better either, but that's all the answer you're getting out of me.

Live with it.

[betty boop]

It is not true that "no one can define 'free will'." My favorite dictionary is the Oxford Dictionary of the English Language, and it gives this definition:

Free Will: noun
the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one’s own discretion.

Seems pretty clear and straightforward to me.

I do not believe that the Stanford Encyclopedia ever said "we really don't know what free will means." Certainly the writer of this entry was aware of Augustine.

I'm having difficulty following you, dear brother HarleyD. On the one hand, you seem to reject the idea of free will out of hand. Then on the other, you appear to agree with Augustine's definition of it: "He foreknew who would be holy and immaculate by the choice of free will, and on that account elected them before the foundation of the world in that same foreknowledge of His in which He foreknew that they would be such."

I have reason to believe the Stanford article illuminates Augustine's thinking on this subject: "omnipotent God's cooperative activity can be (explanatorily) prior to a human choice and yet the outcome of that choice [can] be settled only by the choice itself."

You say that nowhere in Holy Scripture can we find the words "free will." Well jeepers, how can we understand the fall of Adam other than as a consequence of his free choice, his decision to disobey God? Or do you hold that God "programmed" Adam to disobey Him? Then it seems we are the position of having to say that Adam was simply God's pawn, being moved about on some divine chess board, not a creature made in His image, possessing reason and free will.

The Holman Bible Dictionary has an entry for "free will offering" — i.e., "free will" here used in its adjectival form: Holman defines it as "a gift given at the impulse of the giver.... The distinctive mark of the free will offering was the 'stirred hearts' and 'willing spirits' of the givers...."[See Exodus 35:29, Exodus 36:3-7, Deuteronomy 16:10, I Corinthians 16: 1–2.]

To hear the way some people speak of "sola scriptura," sometimes I get the impression that such folks believe it is "sola scriptura" that saves, and not Jesus Christ. That is, if we have the "correct" doctrine, then and only then can we be saved. In short, it's all about "what you know" and not about "how you live."

Finally, why would God bother to give us His revelation in the Holy Scriptures if it's being addressed to creatures who are not free either to accept or reject it? I don't believe God was "writing for His own amusement."

Sigh.... I grant you, dear brother, this is a very deep subject. Suffice it for now to say that the Creation is partly "determined" and partly "free," roughly corresponding to what my dear sister Alamo-Girl indicated in distinguishing God's creative will and His permissive will.

If there is no free will in the Bible, then why does it say that there is no greater rejoicing in Heaven than when a sinner has a change of heart (i.e., is converted and reconciled to, "convicted" in Christ)? If there is no free will in the Bible, then what are we to make of the Parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32)?

Well enuf for now. Thank you heartily, dear brother HarleyD, for sharing your views with us!

[CynicalBear]

>>That describes Philadelphia....which incidentally was an entire city.<<

The church at Philadelphia was certainly NOT the entire city. It consisted of the believers in the city.

>>A cult that doesn’t reference its leader: your church<<

So you’re not trying to demean anyone ey?

>>how does your fellowship of believers differ from the Christian Identity Movement?<<

I have no idea what the “Christian Identity Movement” is.

[metmom]

I have attended services in churches of all flavors, GARB (Baptist), OPC, Presbyterian, Methodist, AoG, Elim Fellowship, Calvary Chapel, Christian and Missionary Alliance, Independent, Mega churches, and have found differences in areas referred to as disputable matters (Romans 14) but none in the basics of faith in the final authority of Scripture and salvation by grace, through faith in Jesus Christ as the gift of God.

It's the rebirth in Christ that makes us Christians, not Baptists, not Methodists, not Presbyterians, not ANY denomination.

Jesus saves, not denominations. Identification with Him is our unity.

Galatians 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

Demands for my denominational affiliation so as people can then judge me to know whether I am saved or not are meaningless and not going to be answered any further than they have been.

Jesus saves. Scripture is the final authority.