Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children
LifeSiteNews.com ^ | 12/4/2006 | John-Henry Westen

Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480

'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

By John-Henry Westen

NEW YORK, December 4, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A review of New Line Cinema's The Nativity story by Fr. Angelo Mary Geiger of the Franciscans of the Immaculate in the United States, points out that the film, which opened December 1, misinterprets scripture from a Catholic perspective.

While Fr. Geiger admits that he found the film is "in general, to be a pious and reverential presentation of the Christmas mystery." He adds however, that "not only does the movie get the Virgin Birth wrong, it thoroughly Protestantizes its portrayal of Our Lady."

In Isaiah 7:14 the Bible predicts the coming of the Messiah saying: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel." Fr. Geiger, in an video blog post, explains that the Catholic Church has taught for over 2000 years that the referenced Scripture showed that Mary would not only conceive the child miraculously, but would give birth to the child miraculously - keeping her physical virginity intact during the birth.

The film, he suggests, in portraying a natural, painful birth of Christ, thus denies the truth of the virginal and miraculous birth of Christ, which, he notes, the Fathers of the Church compared to light passing through glass without breaking it. Fr. Geiger quoted the fourth century St. Augustine on the matter saying. "That same power which brought the body of the young man through closed doors, brought the body of the infant forth from the inviolate womb of the mother."

Fr. Geiger contrasts The Nativity Story with The Passion of the Christ, noting that with the latter, Catholics and Protestants could agree to support it. He suggests, however, that the latter is "a virtual coup against Catholic Mariology".

The characterization of Mary further debases her as Fr. Geiger relates in his review. "Mary in The Nativity lacks depth and stature, and becomes the subject of a treatment on teenage psychology."

Beyond the non-miraculous birth, the biggest let-down for Catholics comes from Director Catherine Hardwicke's own words. Hardwicke explains her rationale in an interview: "We wanted her [Mary] to feel accessible to a young teenager, so she wouldn't seem so far away from their life that it had no meaning for them. I wanted them to see Mary as a girl, as a teenager at first, not perfectly pious from the very first moment. So you see Mary going through stuff with her parents where they say, 'You're going to marry this guy, and these are the rules you have to follow.' Her father is telling her that she's not to have sex with Joseph for a year-and Joseph is standing right there."

Comments Fr. Geiger, "it is rather disconcerting to see Our Blessed Mother portrayed with 'attitude;' asserting herself in a rather anachronistic rebellion against an arranged marriage, choosing her words carefully with her parents, and posing meaningful silences toward those who do not understand her."

Fr. Geiger adds that the film also contains "an overly graphic scene of St. Elizabeth giving birth," which is "just not suitable, in my opinion, for young children to view."

Despite its flaws Fr. Geiger, after viewing the film, also has some good things to say about it. "Today, one must commend any sincere attempt to put Christ back into Christmas, and this film is certainly one of them," he says. "The Nativity Story in no way compares to the masterpiece which is The Passion of the Christ, but it is at least sincere, untainted by cynicism, and a worthy effort by Hollywood to end the prejudice against Christianity in the public square."

And, in addition to a good portrait of St. Joseph, the film offers "at least one cinematic and spiritual triumph" in portraying the Visitation of Mary to St. Elizabeth. "Although the Magnificat is relegated to a kind of epilogue at the movie's end, the meeting between Mary and Elizabeth is otherwise faithful to the scriptures and quite poignant. In a separate scene, the two women experience the concurrent movement of their children in utero and share deeply in each other's joy. I can't think of another piece of celluloid that illustrates the dignity of the unborn child better than this."

See Fr. Geiger's full review here:
http://airmaria.com/


TOPICS: Catholic; Current Events; Religion & Culture; Theology
KEYWORDS: catholic; catholics; christmas; mary; movie; nativity; nativitystory; thenativitystory
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 15,421-15,44015,441-15,46015,461-15,480 ... 16,241-16,256 next last
To: Forest Keeper; annalex
This is a matter of interpretation, as it usually is. As an aside, I note that the bolded part is 100% antithetical to Catholic teaching.

You are wrong. Baptism is based upon the saving works of Jesus Christ, not its own inherent power. Why do you keep this charade up, that Christ's work is antithetical to Catholic teaching? Why can't you get past the polemics and rhetoric and listen to what we say? We believe that Christ died for our sins once and for all, BUT that it is not applied to us until we are baptized, until we ask for forgiveness of sins, and until we receive the Eucharist. Is this so difficult?

Regards

15,441 posted on 05/31/2007 5:57:36 AM PDT by jo kus (Humility is present when one debases oneself without being obliged to do so- St.Chrysostom; Phil 2:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15438 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper
Please pardon my interruption, but I saw these out of the corner of my screen ...

Now THIS is significant! :) I thought that Orthodoxy leaned in this direction, and my understanding is that the Latins have a VERY different view. My learning has been that Roman Catholics believe that God literally transferred the power to forgive sins and "transubstantiate", etc. IOW, once the power transfer takes place, then they DO accomplish it "on their own".

Heck no (in my untutored opinion)!


Catechism section 1440 is titled "Only God forgives sin."

Wise ones, check me on this, please. The problem is, once again, one of language AND one of time (and, I guess, place) and eternity. God is everywhere and everywhen; we aren't.

In our everyday experience, a delegate or deputy or minister plenipotentiary must operate in the absence of the one he represents. Because even the great ones among us are finite and of limited intelligence, they have to delegate power and authority to others.

Strictly speaking, though, the term "apostolic" when applied to the Church is of course metaphorical. It seems completely apt in this sense: If I had given you power of attorney and my bank account info (well, except that in my case it wouldn't do you any good -- Let's say Bill Gates had given you all that stuff.) In that case you're doing the spending, but it's Gates's money.

Here (to unwind the comparison a little) the priest is writing the check, but it's God's account. Since God agreed to be bound by the acts of his "apostles", and consequently we rightly trust those acts and take confidence that when the the bishop or priest says, "You are forgiven -- even of this sin which troubles or ought to trouble) you so greatly," it is really so.

( I also think there is great evangelical and pastoral wisdom in this. I can SAY ever so boldly, 'The Lord has put my sins away, I am washed in the blood of the Lamb, and my robes are made clean!" But if I cannot say even to one person who is bound under incredible strictures to keep my information so secure that he can never even hint at it again without my express permission, do I really believe it? I can SAY, "My harness is good, my carabiner is good, the rope is good, the belay point and knots are good," and still balk at backing over the edge of the precipice. Trusting in God's forgiveness is a virtue that takes grace -- and practice!)

But the metaphor is wrong in the sense that God is right here and right now -- ALL of God, not a piece of Him. So while it's just Fr. So-and-so whom I see listening and trying to suppress a yawn and wondering when he''ll get a potty break, it is God to whom I speak and God who forgives me.

I don't mean that to be so much persuasive as descriptive, and no doubt it's very wrong in some particulars.

1 Peter 3:18-21 : 18 For Christ died for sins once for all, ...
... As an aside, I note that the bolded part is 100% antithetical to Catholic teaching. ...

What the ... Heck no!

It's that "everywhere and everywhen" problem again and related to my absolutely brilliant and evocative ... and modest, don't forget that part ... essay earlier on on the Incarnation, on the womb, the manger, the stable which held something bigger than all Creation in them.

I think we just have to hurl ourselves over and over again against the problem of God and Time.

And also, just to make it completely incomprehensible, when it comes to the sufficiency of Christ's dolours and sacrifice, there's Colossians 1:24.

15,442 posted on 05/31/2007 6:12:56 AM PDT by Mad Dawg (I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15438 | View Replies]

To: jo kus; Forest Keeper
I really don't think FK is lost in polemics. I DO think that a big part of the "Failure to communicate"(by which, of course, I mean "failure to agree with me") is the problem of Christ and Time, the problem if the Incarnation.

As a poorly expressed example:
If we say the sacrifice of the Mass is a recapitulation or re-presentation of The Sacrifice of Calvary, many conclude that there is a kind of multiplicity, of many-ness, and therefore of repetition and addition to Calvary in what we think we're doing. And if an addition is possible, desirable, or even necessary, then it must reasonably be concluded that there was something less than sufficient and less than comprehensive about Calvary.
But, if I understand our teaching correctly, there is no addition possible, much less desirable or necessary. This DOES leave us with the outrageous assertion that Calvary is happening right there on our altars and in our mouths.

But reading +Paul and what I think is his time-bending theology, I do not object to this particular aspect of the Christian proclamation. To me, it is the calculus of the Incarnation, of how you stuff eternity and eternity's God into a baby, without an explosion.

But of course, there is an explosion. It is in our hearts. It is a lethal explosion. It kills the old man. (Now, if I could just persuade him he's dead ...)

15,443 posted on 05/31/2007 6:30:22 AM PDT by Mad Dawg (I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15441 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg; Forest Keeper
I really don't think FK is lost in polemics. I DO think that a big part of the "Failure to communicate"(by which, of course, I mean "failure to agree with me") is the problem of Christ and Time, the problem if the Incarnation.

We have been trying and trying to explain, but it keeps coming back to "you resacrifice Christ" or "you don't think that Christ's work was sufficient". Rather than say such things, which we deny over and over in clear language, it might be better to say "I don't understand" or "you are not making sense", if it is a communication problem. Trust me, I have spent well many hours communicating with FK and trying to explain Catholicism. Unfortunately, it sometimes goes back to square one...

Yes, the incarnation, to understand more fully, MUST be a realization that God and man has joined. Somehow, time and timelessness has joined. Thus, whatever the Son does, who has become a hypostatic union of two natures in a point of time, is done also by God. Thus, we can say that the Cross has entered into timelessness somehow.

I hear you about the old man. Mine keeps trying to get out of bed!

Regards

15,444 posted on 05/31/2007 9:36:26 AM PDT by jo kus (Humility is present when one debases oneself without being obliged to do so- St.Chrysostom; Phil 2:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15443 | View Replies]

To: jo kus; Mad Dawg
FK: "NO Bible-believing Protestant could possibly say that baptism is salvific."

Every Protestant believes that Baptism is merely an ordinance? Perhaps you should poll the Anglicans.

You know how I use the term "Bible-believing Protestant". It would be unfair of me to characterize the Anglicans because I simply do not know enough about their belief system. What I DO know is that among all of the Protestants with whom you and I regularly have exchanges, I am aware of NONE who believe that baptism is salvific.

My point is not to argue specific theology, but to point out that you are incorrect to state that Protestants share a common faith at the specific level on key issues. One of the problems with defending the faith vs. Protestants, from my point of view, is that I don't know where "john doe" stands regarding "theology x" until he says something. Everyone can learn what Catholicism teaches by reading the Catechism. It is quite simple to find it. As to Protestants, where is this source that I can go to that explains what you believe, all of you, on a variety of subjects, because it would make my job a lot easier rather than guessing what I am up against beforehand.

This is well stated. My first advice would be to get away from thinking that on the one hand there is Catholicism and on the other is Protestantism. Catholicism is a self-contained monolithic faith. Protestantism is nothing like that. IMHO, the true Protestantism is found in Reformed theology, which is spread across different denominations. You know for a fact that of the many Reformers you normally deal with, the theologies are nearly identical.

And, I can say the following with no reservation at all: Since I started posting here I have had the pleasure of conversation with many Roman Catholics. Overall, I would say that the theology that I have been showed has been very consistent. And, I would say that it has been no more consistent than that of the Reformers I have also encountered across these threads. IOW, in the universe of people who know what they're talking about, there is plenty of consistency ...... on all sides.

LOL! You are attacking your own position by changing your story. Of course Paul is not condemning the entire community. However, that was your stance several posts ago, which I then responded sarcastically:

I thought you were being literal and I have no idea why you think I have changed my stance. While it's not impossible, with my training, I don't usually attack my own position. :)

I presume you read the story of the Prodigal Son. Are you saying that God only forgives sins one time?

For salvational purposes "Yes", and for healing purposes "No". For salvation the blood of Christ served to forgive us believers of all sins ever committed. We are further told in the Bible that we are to confess our sins to one another, as well as to God of course. "Confession is good for the soul", etc. This is a healing mechanism but has nothing to do with salvation.

Even you must admit that a person can become so enamored in sin that they are considered spiritually dead and not capable of repenting without some miraculous intervention by God.

Well, it depends on who is doing the considering! :) Certainly, those with true faith will falter, sometimes for years. No question. However, my faith's view of scriptures is that God promises that He will bring such a person back into the fold before it is too late. That is what POTS is all about.

I think we need to discuss what "spiritually dead" is, since you have a mistaken concept. Every sin doesn't cause spiritual death - as John's epistle clearly states.

If you're talking mortal vs. venial then I think I get that. If there is more then I am happy to listen. However, the Bible is clear that every real sin DOES result in spiritual death. "Rom 6:23 : For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." This doesn't include any qualifications on different levels of sin.

Either the first Christians were hopelessly distorting the Gospel just given to them or the Gospel has been preserved intact and the Reformation folks are wrong. If God preserves His People from error (the Church IS the pillar and foundation of the TRUTH), then where does that lead the protester?

The protester does not protest God's Church, he protests the distortion of it by others. If the early Fathers were correct in their interpretation, then Christianity is NOT a revealed faith, but a hidden faith that only a few are able to uncover. I just can't accept that.

Why would a Catholic of 300 AD worry about writing something that might be used by the reformers 1200 years later? Those men were theologians writing to the people of their time, expressing their beliefs of God, Christ, and the plan of salvation.

Oh, I don't accuse them of intellectual dishonesty, I think they believed what they wrote. What I'm saying is that the reason we know what they wrote is that the ones who held the power agreed. Aside from Augustine, and maybe a few others on specific issues, I don't think that Reformed thinking was preserved to the level it probably enjoyed. IOW, I don't think the first Reformers were really the first Reformers. Luther and friends were not inventing something new. They were just the first to organize the theology.

FK: "James and Paul are EQUALLY the word of God."

Some of the "reformers" didn't think so.

Well, I won't ask you to name names, but I can't think of a single Reformer around these parts who would disagree with what I said. But if you are talking about Luther, then you are right that he was wrong to try to get rid of James. Thank God he failed, or I would surely be the lesser for it. I can forgive him. :)

Who said anything about works salvation in James? It says that faith alone doesn't save! Consider Sola Fide dead and buried. It doesn't say that works alone saves. See, the problem is that you have to have it "either/or". Too bad. It prevents you from seeing the wonderful integrity of the entire Bible without having to build a "canon within a canon" by always falling back on Paul, Paul, Paul...

There is no problem. Any salvation model that includes works as a separate element is a works-based model. I know that you do not dismiss the importance of faith, you just concentrate on works. I get it. :)

Sola Fide will only pass away when the Bible does. They are linked forever. I don't understand how on the one hand you say to consider the whole Bible (that's good), but on the other hand you say to ignore Paul when he disagrees with Roman Catholic theology. Obviously, Paul is a major part of the whole Bible.

FK: "Works are an included component of true faith."

Which means that faith is not alone. Spell out the consequences of what you have said. There is hope for you yet...

:) Then it is a semantic argument over what "faith" means. I don't see works as a separate element in salvation. I don't believe that some with faith do works and others with faith do not. I believe that is impossible. Works are a visible manifestation of faith, an evidence of it. My use of Sola Fide includes this.

15,445 posted on 05/31/2007 4:09:49 PM PDT by Forest Keeper (It is a joy to me to know that God had my number, before He created numbers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15255 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; Forest Keeper; HarleyD; 1000 silverlings; blue-duncan
FK: I am sure of own resurrection.

KOSTA: So, then, I suppose you don't pray for it, do you?

We are as sure of our own resurrection as we are of Christ's resurrection. Scripture gives us this confidence.

"So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.

But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord." -- 1 CORINTHIANS 15:54-58


15,446 posted on 05/31/2007 4:33:26 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15439 | View Replies]

To: kosta50
FK: "This He knew from the beginning."

Beginning of what?

As I said, "before the foundations". God knew His children before He created the Heavens and the earth, etc. We are not told much about what God was up to before He created, but this the Bible tells us.

If time did not exist, then nothing existed before. It's meaningless to speak of beginning when it comes to God.

I don't know when God created time. All we know for sure is that it was some time before Gen. 1:1 because God did not come into existence at that point. God preceded creation, as we know it.

15,447 posted on 05/31/2007 4:51:56 PM PDT by Forest Keeper (It is a joy to me to know that God had my number, before He created numbers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15264 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper
It would be unfair of me to characterize the Anglicans because I simply do not know enough about their belief system.

Really? Then how can you possibly make the claim that all Protestants are as one on major doctrinal issues???

Catholicism is a self-contained monolithic faith. Protestantism is nothing like that.

Which is odd that your faith is NOT more shared. If the Bible was so clear on its own (which I will argue until in the grave that it is not!), we wouldn't be having this conversation. Unfortunately, Luther correctly realized too late that he had opened a Pandora's box, stating that there were as many beliefs in Protestantism as there were heads. (that is a paraphrase). The Bible says the Church has one faith taught to God's people. My opinion, and the Church, is to say that it teaches the fullness, and men such as yourself are united to this Church based on your oneness to her in practice and doctrine.

In the end, I do not see how two Protestants can resolve a disagreement, as there is no authority that is living. Jesus told His apostles that we are to take unresolvable problems to the Church. Given that they have the power to bind and loosen, it goes without saying that this would include interpretation of the Bible.

I am reading a very interesting book on Irenaeus that argues this very concept: that the Gnostics, who had the same Scriptures, were wrong because they were not following the Rule of Faith. In other words, there is a particular way of reading the Bible that is acceptable, and another that deviates from that. This idea must have been common even during the latter parts of the NT, as we note that John and Paul had problems with false teachers. They must have used similar lines of logic to distinguish their teachings from false teachings.

IOW, in the universe of people who know what they're talking about, there is plenty of consistency ...... on all sides.

Yes, that is true, I have found Reformed theologians here to be consistent - As you can imagine, the Gnostics were ALSO consistent in most of their beliefs! I do not know how this can be resolved by the Bible, because both camps are honestly looking to the Bible to bring out their view. In the end, FK, it comes down to "who is the Spirit leading" - the individual or the community.

While it's not impossible, with my training, I don't usually attack my own position. :)

I don't think you want to revist 1 Cor 3:12-17! Suffice to say that it causes serious problems with the "salvation by faith ALONE" theory. If you want, you can try again after you collect your thoughts. However, recall that being "destroyed" is NOT a term that defines "lower rewards" in heaven!!!

For salvational purposes "Yes", and for healing purposes "No".

Oi! What exactly is the difference between healing and being saved??? They are used interchangeably in the Gospel! When Jesus cures someone, He says "you are saved" and other times "you are healed"! Would you like some verses to prove that? This sounds like another one of those contrived differences, like positional salvation!

For salvation the blood of Christ served to forgive us believers of all sins ever committed.

Christ died for ALL men. Again, you are consistently avoiding huge chunks of Scriptures. Christ didn't die just for the just, because, as Romans 5 states, we were in sin first before His death. Thus, salvation is available to anyone who avails themselves to accepting the promptings of the Spirit, who rains on the good and the evil.

However, the Bible is clear that every real sin DOES result in spiritual death. "Rom 6:23 : For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." This doesn't include any qualifications on different levels of sin.

I believe that verse is speaking more generally to say that man can only earn death, while life is a gift from Christ. We would agree on that. As to the level of sin required for spiritual death to occur, John tells us there are some sins that do not kill. Some do. I don't think this verse is making a statement in that direction. It doesn't say EVERY SIN earns death. It just says sin in general. Thus, a person living a life of sin earns death.

The protester does not protest God's Church, he protests the distortion of it by others. If the early Fathers were correct in their interpretation, then Christianity is NOT a revealed faith, but a hidden faith that only a few are able to uncover. I just can't accept that.

I am not sure I understand your reasoning about the early Fathers hiding the faith! They write about it all the time. As a matter of fact, Irenaeus makes that very same statement you make towards the Gnostics, stating that the teachings of the Church are NOT hidden and are open to all, while the Gnostics relied on hidden knowledge to become saved. Church history inevitably leads one to Catholicism, because people see the continuity between the Church of 100 AD and today.

What I'm saying is that the reason we know what they wrote is that the ones who held the power agreed.

Nice try. We also have hostile witnesses. We have the Roman writings, the Jewish writings, and we have the Gnostic library, all writing against the Church that we call "Catholic". Your premise fails.

FK: "James and Paul are EQUALLY the word of God." Some of the "reformers" didn't think so.

A gentleman here seemed pretty intent on discussing the "clear" writings of Paul vs. James, who "doesn't discuss eternal salvation" with me. Also, I have run into a number of people who consider Paul a canon above the canon. They would rather look to Paul (who Peter calls "hard to understand") than Jesus about salvation!!!

There is no problem. Any salvation model that includes works as a separate element is a works-based model. I know that you do not dismiss the importance of faith, you just concentrate on works. I get it. :)

I don't consider faith and works separate! How could you say such a thing? Have our classes been for naught?!

Well, I got to go. Daughter needs the computer...

Regards

15,448 posted on 05/31/2007 4:59:47 PM PDT by jo kus (Humility is present when one debases oneself without being obliged to do so- St.Chrysostom; Phil 2:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15445 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg
Does it help to mention that Aristotle says time is the measure of motion (which includes any change)? If you have change, I think you have sequence - one thing (or state) following another. So you have before and after. AND it would seem that to perceive a change is to change.

Yes, thank you. That sounds like a good way to look at it.

15,449 posted on 05/31/2007 5:07:25 PM PDT by Forest Keeper (It is a joy to me to know that God had my number, before He created numbers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15265 | View Replies]

Comment #15,450 Removed by Moderator

To: Forest Keeper; Religion Moderator
RM: Please delete the former message. I'm sorry - lousy proof-reading. It's the Jack Daniels (I wish.)

I'm glad it was useful. Old Aristotle ain't so bad.

And this is kind of how we back into the whole "eternity" line of thought. The notion is that God "in Himself" does not change. If all there is is God, then there is no time, because there is no change.

The Son is, in one formulation "eternally begotten of the Father" <contra the Arians whose initial position (I am told - haven't done the original research) was "There was a time when the Son did not exist," and their fall-back was to "There was when the Son did not exist," neither of which was acceptable to Athanasius. (And I would have objected to the second on the grounds that it was senselessly different from the first.)

Then, to maintain the idea that things don't "happen to God" -- His impassibility, His NOT "suffering" in any sense of the word, ancient or modern -- we have to put Him sort of "around" or "above" or "outside" of time, so that He can apprehend the whole mishegoss at once.

To start the thought, I envision a cottonmouth swimming across a pond. All he sees, with his eyes at water level, is where he is. But we are above the pond, and we see everything around him.

Then if we were to apprehend his every position in the pond at once, it would be sorta kinda like God and time. And then we can throw pebbles into the pond, before the snake, after him, or right at him. We see the whole thing and our view does not change, but for him every second is new and is swiftly slipping into the past, with NOW as the nexus where the water touches his eyes.

(What actually happened was that the farm owner shot him with #4 shot. This does not fit into my metaphor.)

And for God, all times are Now. (And a subset of, or reflection on, that observation is what Aslan says on Coriakin's island in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader: All times are soon to me.)

Clearly this is a very inadequate image.

15,451 posted on 05/31/2007 7:20:58 PM PDT by Mad Dawg (I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15449 | View Replies]

To: jo kus; Mad Dawg
MD: "He {FK} said "Bible-believing Protestant."

JK: "A relative term. Which Protestant thinks he is NOT a "Bible-believing" person?"

But you have been showed a relatively consistent faith on these boards. Yes, I freely admit the synergist-monergist problem and I freely admit the disagreement on baptism. But at the core, from the vast majority of us you are getting the same message.

If there is any unity among Protestants, it would be that each person believes that the Bible is the sole source of Christian doctrine.

Yes, and you have seen that.

They freely interpret it as they see fit.

That is your personal interpretation of our interpretation. :) We believe the Spirit leads us.

Thus, even the most liberal of Protestants will fall back on "I am getting my interpretations from the Bible" and refute the more conservative Protestant who disagrees with them - even about homosexuality or women priests. (GACK!) And so disunity multiplies, as doctrines multiply as the number of heads increase in Protestantism...

I could start listing wayward Catholics but there are bandwidth concerns. :) I don't think you want to criticize Protestantism just for the fact that there are liberals who claim to be Protestants. I would say that we are all in the same boat on that one. You know the one faith I represent and you know of many others here on FR who share in it. You have to admit that if you read a certain theological comment from the blind you would have no idea if it was authored by me or any of a large number of people here.

15,452 posted on 05/31/2007 7:56:01 PM PDT by Forest Keeper (It is a joy to me to know that God had my number, before He created numbers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15275 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper
But you have been showed a relatively consistent faith on these boards. Yes, I freely admit the synergist-monergist problem and I freely admit the disagreement on baptism. But at the core, from the vast majority of us you are getting the same message.

FK, you yourself admit that we have NOT seen a cross-section of Protestantism on our "back-woods" threads. Most of the Protestants here are of the Reformed persuasion. I do not know why that is. However, most of you guys are Calvinists or some variation. I am in contact with Lutherans, Baptists, Episcopilians and Methodists. Again, I just don't think Protestantism is as monolithic as you are trying to make it out to be. How can you even state such if you do not know the beliefs of other Protestants?

We believe the Spirit leads us.

Can you show me some Scriptures that tells us that the Holy Spirit leads us in Bible study? I am curious, as it doesn't ring a bell. Maybe I skipped over it. Thanks.

I could start listing wayward Catholics but there are bandwidth concerns. :)

You could, but you would be wasting our time. Catholic TEACHINGS are monolithic. Now, whether "Catholic" people become "Protestant" and decide to pick and choose, that is not the Catholic way. The word "catholic" means "totality of the whole". By definition, the Greek word means we believe ALL of revelation, not what we decide suits our fancy. Thus, since there is only one body of teaching, there is only one faith in Catholicism, unlike Protestantism. The problem is not the teaching, but some of the people who are too attached to the world and prefer to think our faith is a democracy, rather than a revealed religion.

Regards

15,453 posted on 05/31/2007 8:47:34 PM PDT by jo kus (Humility is present when one debases oneself without being obliged to do so- St.Chrysostom; Phil 2:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15452 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper
As I said, "before the foundations"

No, FK, you said "This [God] knew from the beginning." My question is what beginning? If it is the beginning of the Creation, then He didn't know us before that. If it implies some other beginning, then eternity is not eternal, but subject to time. Therefore to say God knew from the beginning is incorrect; rather, God knows us for all eternity more properly expresses timlessness of God; the word beginning in not timless.

15,454 posted on 05/31/2007 10:31:15 PM PDT by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15447 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; betty boop; .30Carbine; Quix; adiaireton8
What makes no sense, FK, is that God makes "choices." Think about it, choice is something we have because we don't know the outcome for certain. So, what possible "choice" could God make not knowing the outcome? ...

No, choice is something that God has because different outcomes cannot be simultaneously true. Christ came to die for our sins, but He was not compelled to do so. It was a choice. It has nothing to do with whether He already knows what His choice IS, of course He does, but it does have to do with our reality versus some other reality we would now be experiencing had God made other choices. "God's Plan" is a laundry list of choices.

Does God have to choose between different possibilities or did He make the world exactly as designed.

God made the world exactly as He designed by making many choices.

God makes no choices, FK. He just does everything right the first time.

Every possibility that exists has laid before God. Among them all, God has chosen the existence that we know. Indeed it was His first choice, and it was right.

Where does God say "I want you to love me?"

Many places, but here are two:

Ex. 20:5-6 : 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand [ generations] of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Mark 12:28-30 : 28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?" 29 "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'

I don't think it gets any clearer than this. These are Commandments. The intent is obvious.

FK: "I wouldn't say that's why He created Adam."

Then why did He?

I can't be certain but we are told something about it:

Ex 6:7 : I will take you as my own people, and I will be your God. Then you will know that I am the Lord your God, who brought you out from under the yoke of the Egyptians.

God stated that He wanted to be OUR God. He wanted to love His children and He wanted them to love Him. He wanted this loving relationship. Creating Adam furthered this desire.

FK: "The Bible specifically tells us that God predestined that Esau would sell his birthright, and so obviously God knew."

This is one of those parts of the Bible that cannot possibly be true. There is no reason whatsoever why God would hate Esau unless Esau did something God did not foresee which is impossible.

That doesn't follow at all. Why would God's hate HAVE to be based on a surprise? satan never surprised God, yet I hope you believe that God hates him.

God has no reason to hate Esau, as Esau did nothing God did not already know before it happened, and by His permission, or because Esau had no choice but to do what he did, and was simply doing God's will.

Of course God already knew what was going to happen. What does that have to do with hate vs. love? God hates sin. God loves His children. God did not choose Esau to be among His children, so God hated him, just like everyone else who winds up in Hell. God USED Esau for His purposes in the furtherance of His plan. I know this sounds harsh, but it is God's right. He is the potter and can do what He wants with His creations.

Don't you think it's a little strange that God would hate Esau for selling his birthright and not Adam for ruining the whole Creation? Or Judas for selling out Christ? Or Pontius Pilate for turning Him over to the Jews when he could have pardoned Him?

No, not at all. I don't know why God chooses to save some and not others. I only know that He does.

But, of course, in your theology all this happened because God "wanted" it. If He wanted it and He gets what He wants, than there is no reason whatsoever for Him to hate anyone, good or evil, for "doing His will," especially Esau!

It is not like God was "disappointed" in Esau because he let Him down or something. Esau was simply not chosen to be among God's children. Therefore, God "hates" him and he winds up in Hell. God did get what He wanted, but that is beside the point to what you are talking about. God simply did not want Esau to be saved, and so He did not grace Esau sufficiently to come to a saving faith. Consequently, Esau remained a lost soul. God is sovereign and has this right.

And while you are at it, explain to me how can Love hate?

While God encompasses (defines) all aspects of true love, those are not His limits, as you seem to suggest. God is also Justice and He is also Wrath. When God defeats satan in the end times, are you going to call that an act of love? It will be for some, but not for all. I think you are unnecessarily limiting God here.

Did Esau have a choice of not doing that in your theology? Or course not! So, he was (pre)destined to do what God wanted in His plan, which involved Esau selling his birthright, not because he wanted to but because God did, right?

That's basically right according to my beliefs, but I have to add that Esau genuinely wanted to do what he did. God did not change his mind toward the negative. God simply left him alone to such a degree that Esau would make the stupid choice, in furtherance of God's plan. This is EXACTLY why I think the comparison God chose for us adults is so brilliant. He calls us His children. We are indeed CHILDREN, who do not know what is best for us, as smart as we think we are.

We who are parents know full well how much our own children NEED us to provide for, protect, and defend them. For us know-it-alls, not only is it similar, it is even to a greater degree with God. We are utterly lost without Him directly leading the way. Our degrees in higher education are worthless here. We are no more than lost sheep who need a Shepherd. Thank God we both have a Perfect One.

But in your theology there can be no disobedience to God!?

No, I would never say this. It is a subtle point, but you have brought it up enough times that I really want you to know what I say about this. :) I believe that "obedience" is between a master and a subject. I want my son to obey me because I am his master, for now. :) However, if a non-subject happens to do what a master wanted, that does not count as "obedience". Here is an example:

A few years ago we had a fox who roamed our neighborhood. At the same time we apparently had a mouse problem in the garage because the dog food bag was being bitten into. So, for a few nights I left the garage door open. Suddenly, for whatever reason, we had no more problem with the dog food! :) Now from your reasoning you would have to say that the fox "obeyed" me, and I disagree with that. I did not order the fox to do anything. I left it alone and arranged opportunity. I'm saying that's what God does too.

Remember, God is always in control whether we obey or disobey. Either way we can only do His will, right? Otherwise God couldn't get what He wants, right?

God is always in control, yes. But that does not ALWAYS mean that the actor does his deeds at the behest of, or FOR, the controller. It means he does his deeds in accordance with the controller's wishes. These are two ENTIRELY different concepts.

Can you imagine if Esau decided not to sell his birthright!? Or if Judas said to himself, "30 pieces of silver, I don't need that..."? Or if Adam spanked Eve and chased away the Serpent instead of eating the fruit?!?

No, I cannot imagine those things. God wanted what He wanted, and so it happened. There was no accident.

FK: "God used [Judas and the rest] by removing Himself from them to that degree necessary to guarantee that His plan would be accomplished exactly as designed."

Were they under grace? Are you suggesting they had indwelling Spirit? But be it as you make things up, by "removing" Himself from them, He did not just "allow" things to happen, but created conditions under which they will happen for certain, so the determining factors are not the peons running around on earth but God. Where is the guilt of the peons in all this?

As I said in another post after you posted this, I do believe that God sustains even the lost to some level. But no, I do not think these people ever had the indwelling Holy Spirit. There is no room at the Inn for God and satan to share a body. ...... The guilt of the peons depends on the duty one thrusts upon God to act and protect in certain ways. If you believe that God OWES us protection from satan then you can lay our faults upon Him. Or, if you believe that the simple fact of creation itself imposes a duty upon God to offer a free will choice out of trouble, then I suppose you can blame Him again for when we blow it. I do not choose to do that. :) God is sovereign, He makes choices, and the world today is EXACTLY as it should be by His design.

FK: "And in your theology God loves the vast majority of people so much that He stands aside and does nothing to protect them while they hurl themselves off a cliff to their doom."

God does nothing? You mean as in spoon-feeding them? Are you saying "it's not faaaaair?" :)

No, I'm just saying that under your theology God doesn't REALLY love them. I'm the one who says that God doesn't owe us "fair". You are the one who places a duty on Him if you believe that God owes everyone a "chance" at being saved.

The Bible clearly tells you that God does not compel. He is not dealing with "children" but with rational human beings that he equipped with reason.

Well, I commented on this earlier, but why would you suppose that God would choose this metaphor to repeat over and over in the Bible if it really didn't fit with reality? When we deal with other adults we deal with peers. Should we think of God like that? When we deal with children we know who is the boss and who is in control. I think that the Biblical comparison is perfect.

15,455 posted on 06/01/2007 4:11:29 AM PDT by Forest Keeper (It is a joy to me to know that God had my number, before He created numbers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15283 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe; kosta50
You and FK are putting up with each other quite nicely, as I am with you two and others.. is that LOVE?...

Yeah, I feel a "Fest" kind of thing going on. I think it's kinda nice. :)

15,456 posted on 06/01/2007 5:01:55 AM PDT by Forest Keeper (It is a joy to me to know that God had my number, before He created numbers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15290 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper; jo kus
I could start listing wayward Catholics but there are bandwidth concerns. :)

Now cut that out! (Jack Benny)

I think this is partly a terminology problem. I think we should retire to committee and come up with an acceptable term for more or less Calvinist, "Bible-believing" Protestant type personnel. That should take only about 6 months.

I am currently reading a (tendentious but not all that bad) collection of conversion stories. Of course a collection of conversion stories is going to be all about what a great choice it was. But so far all the non Episcopal converts were troubled by the wide range of doctrine, discipline, and worship practices among the various denominations, though some started out thinking that a multitude of denominations was a good thing on the grounds that at least one agreed with one's homies so there wasn't strife all the time. (My personal experience is that if it's a small country church there's gonna be strife. Ain' no fight like a church fight.)

One guy argues that as the Constitution needs to have a Supreme Court, so the Bible needs to have some kind of magisterium. If I were arguing for the Prots I'd say,"Have you heard of the Warren court?"

I'm not arguing one way or another here, but offering this for comment.

In my Friday inchoate thoughts, I'd like to say that when I was in the bidnis, I was pretty much a stickler for worship exactly as our denomination prescribed it. This included a wealth of possible variations, so it wasn't at all confining. My alleged THINKING was that we had accepted our orders from this branch of the Church and had sworn oaths of obedience and had acknowledged implicitly at least that the muckety mucks had the right to lay out what was and what was not acceptable liturgical behavior. It just seemed to me to be a matter of simple moral thought.

On a more group dynamic level I also thought we owed "our" people NOT our own particular notions of how things should be but their church's notions. They hadn't signed up in the Church of Mad Dawg but in the Episcopal Church. What was it about the temptation to lay MY trip on them and why would I not be content with the sermon as a chance to inflict my views on them?

But from the beginning - from "you have been faithful in little, take dominion over much," it seems to me that obedience in the relatively insignificant matter of whether the final benediction goes before or after the final hymn should be easy. It doesn't cost anything, it doesn't make the service longer or shorter, by any objective standard it's a matter of complete indifference. The only thing that makes one way "better" than the other is my whim.

And if I cannot give up my whim on a matter of indifference, how can I think that I will obey God on a matter of importance? If I cannot obey when obedience is easy and costs me nothing, where will I find obedience when the matter is hard and may cost me my money, my ease, my safety, my family, even my life?

What was clear was that for many in clerical vestments, the maxim is, "My way or the highway," no matter how lofty the expression of it.

It may be that one day God will ask something great of me. ("Okay, Mad Dawg, lose ten pounds.""No Lord, not THAT!") I'd like to think that when that happens I at least have had some experience in not having things my way. (I mean other than what I've learned in 32 years of marriage AND raising he thugatera mou -- it's not for nothing that the Greek word for daughter looks like 'thug'.)

Okay, I'll take my medication now.

15,457 posted on 06/01/2007 5:56:17 AM PDT by Mad Dawg (I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15452 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; betty boop; .30Carbine; Quix; adiaireton8
No, choice is something that God has because different outcomes cannot be simultaneously true

For God everything is possible. Outcomes are His creation, not His choice. Choices are in the realm of uncertainty. Whatever God does it is certain. He doesn't choose; He creates. "Let there be light" is not a choice between light and dark; it's a command. "We shall make man" is not a choice but a purpose-driven act; God was not choosing between making man or not making a man. There is no doubt in what God does. And if God wants different outcomes to be simultaneously true, He can make that too; He is not constrained by your logic. You have to think apophatically in order to know what God is not so that you may perceive what God is.

15,458 posted on 06/01/2007 8:30:20 AM PDT by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15455 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; Alamo-Girl; betty boop; .30Carbine; cornelis; Heretic
[.. For God everything is possible. Outcomes are His creation, not His choice. ..]

Obviously you are not a painter of landscapes or portraits..
You could paint the same scene at different times and the scene/result would not come out or appear exactly the same..

To the Observer or to the Creator.. Chance or choice are wonderful vestiges of eternity..
"Matter/mass" does not look so dense when looked at with Quantum Mechanical eyes.

Energy is matter and matter is energy.. you spread them around like paint on the Canvas of the Universe and you have a self-portrait of God.. This metaphor is pregnant.. The Spirit(s) of God are very artistic.. Choice is a wonderful thing.. it bridges dimensions.. I paint landscapes of lighthouses.. most of which exist only in my mind, and two dimensionally of course(the painting)..

15,459 posted on 06/01/2007 10:13:28 AM PDT by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15458 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg
This again is where I get my concern about the problem of theological language from. To say that God "wants", is, at least in the history of the word 'want', to say nothing other than that God lacks something. Can we say that? I would offer instead to say "God wills".

Sure, "God wills" is perfectly good as well. I don't have any issue with "God wants" because I always include "God always gets what He wants". It's good to be omnipotent. :)

But then I read Hosea ... Or Jeremiah who says that God does not willingly afflict or grieve the children of men. Is there a suggestion, at least in the plain meaning of the words, that God does stuff unwillingly? We can explain this away but it seems to me to power of the line is precisely in the inner conflict it expresses, so explaining it away just guts the verse and what Jeremiah is saying.

I "think" I understand what you are saying. :) I suppose I am not bothered by this phenomenon so much because I think that God "willed" :) that we understand Him in terms that we can actually understand. I sort of see it as God reaching down to us and sacrificing a small bit of precision (across the different translations He knew were coming) in order for us to get the main point.

Now, at the risk of being sexist, I'd like to suggest that while this is hard to accept at first, any guy who has tried to understand a woman has found himself tied up in similar knots.

Yes, willingly or unwillingly, and for reasons we don't need to explore at this juncture. :)

15,460 posted on 06/01/2007 12:09:23 PM PDT by Forest Keeper (It is a joy to me to know that God had my number, before He created numbers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15293 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 15,421-15,44015,441-15,46015,461-15,480 ... 16,241-16,256 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson