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

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

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."

Scripture is, simply, the recorded word (or expression) of God.

In some cases. In others, it pretains to the history of God's People. There are books of the Bible (Esther) that do not even mention God (in the Hebrew version), while many other books seem to concentrate on the historical action of the Jewish people and God is in the background. And what do you think about other religions' scriptures? What is your view on other self-proclaimed holy books?

It is God Who inspires it's writing ... and its God Who brings about its recognition.

So the claim goes. The Gnostic writings make the very same claim... They claim to come from God, to be inspired by God, and were recognized as such by Gnostic communities. I think God left another way for the man of 100 AD to decide where the TRUE Scriptures and teachings of Christ could be found.

The Church doesn't create or determine scripture. It is used by God as a conduit to present His scriptures to the world.

I disagree. Every writing of the Bible was created by the Church, a member of the Body of Christ. The Church also determines what is Scriptures by identifying the writing with the already-given teachings... There is no other way to get around that one. You merely fall into "begging the question" by your claim that the individual can determine the contents of Scriptures, because then each individual would have a different table of contents. We know by experience that God chooses not to work that way, but through His Church and their leaders. Without the visible Church, you would have no idea what WERE the Scriptures by which you were to lead your life by. This is just plain common sense. No diabolical reasoning here. We can't fall back on "God tells me what is Scripture" because the Bible has already been compiled by the Church. We thus rely on that determination already given. Those who rely on the individual are merely setting themselves up as an authority over what God has established.

Regards

Scripture is, simply, the recorded word (or expression) of God.

In some cases. In others, it pretains to the history of God's People. There are books of the Bible (Esther) that do not even mention God (in the Hebrew version), while many other books seem to concentrate on the historical action of the Jewish people and God is in the background. And what do you think about other religions' scriptures? What is your view on other self-proclaimed holy books?

In all cases, the scriptures tell us something that God wants us to know. Hebrew/Jewish history (which is quite God-centric, BTW), the poetic writings, etc. are all of part of God's expression to us. The scriptures express God's message to us.

The consideration of the writings of other religious movements brings up a somewhat different issue.

The scriptures are accepted as believable by the Church, in part, because they were produced in a believeable way, present a believeable message, and meet the criteria for valid documentation.

The believeability of the writings of Mohammed and/or Joseph Smith ... is inferior to that of the scriptures ... because those writings each are the product of only one individual. The fact that the message of the scriptures involves many authors (30+) over a period of 5000 years or so gives it a definite advantage over these other writings. It’s not the product of one, possibly, deceived individual or even possible collusion.

The believeability of the Bible scripture is superior to that of any ‘other’ holy writings for similar reasons.

When it came down to it, it wasn’t the Church (initially) which convinced me of the validity of the Christian message ... it was the message of the scriptures. The Church, itself, was not particularly different than any other body of devoted individuals. It was the scriptures, themselves, that made the difference.

I believed in the scriptures first, ... then I came to believe in the Church.

It is God Who inspires it's writing ... and its God Who brings about its recognition.

So the claim goes. The Gnostic writings make the very same claim... They claim to come from God, to be inspired by God, and were recognized as such by Gnostic communities. I think God left another way for the man of 100 AD to decide where the TRUE Scriptures and teachings of Christ could be found.

I would say that the heritage of the scriptures (particularly those of the New Testament) from the actual Apostles of Jesus had a lot to do with that recognition.

The Church doesn't create or determine scripture. It is used by God as a conduit to present His scriptures to the world.

I disagree. Every writing of the Bible was created by the Church, a member of the Body of Christ.

I see the generation and compilation of the scriptures as a God-directed happening. I don’t see it as something which occurred as a result of the wisdom of men. Heaven help us if it did, for men can be quite foolish and wicked.

The Church also determines what is Scriptures by identifying the writing with the already-given teachings... There is no other way to get around that one. You merely fall into "begging the question" by your claim that the individual can determine the contents of Scriptures, because then each individual would have a different table of contents. We know by experience that God chooses not to work that way, but through His Church and their leaders. Without the visible Church, you would have no idea what WERE the Scriptures by which you were to lead your life by. This is just plain common sense. No diabolical reasoning here. We can't fall back on "God tells me what is Scripture" because the Bible has already been compiled by the Church. We thus rely on that determination already given. Those who rely on the individual are merely setting themselves up as an authority over what God has established.

I don’t think that anyone involved in this discussion has made the claim that they can determine the makeup of Christian scripture. That determination has been recognized by the entire Church for the last 1500+ years or so.

Protestants start with the scriptures, making them the primary and final guide to their belief and participation in the Christian community. The scriptures represent the gospel once given, ... there is no need to grant any man greater authority than the scriptures ... because noone around today was around when the gospel once given was given.

In all cases, the scriptures tell us something that God wants us to know.

I agree with that statement more than the other you offered earlier. Not that it was wrong, but it was incomplete.

When it came down to it, it wasn’t the Church (initially) which convinced me of the validity of the Christian message ... it was the message of the scriptures. The Church, itself, was not particularly different than any other body of devoted individuals. It was the scriptures, themselves, that made the difference.

I believed in the scriptures first, ... then I came to believe in the Church.

I suppose we each come to believe in different ways. It will depend on what community you enter into and what they focus on and that will get your own focus. St Augustine said "If it wasn't for the Catholic Church, I would not believe the Gospel". In other words, the Church vouched for the Gospel message. When we look at the Church and we get to know people who do not hide the light of Christ, people begin to trust in what they trust in - the message of God given in the Scriptures and through the Church.

I initially approached the Bible as just another book, considering the claim of the Catholic Church as one in many claims to "know" the will of God. The Bible became historical true upon reading and studying it - and thus, the theology became believable. This is not done in a vacuum, as while this happened, I came into fellowship with faithful Christians who were bearing fruit. Thus, I was able to put the two together - the Bible and God working through the Community.

I see the generation and compilation of the scriptures as a God-directed happening.

That is a redundant statement, because EVERYTHING is a "God-directed happening", at least according to the Bible! Let's not be in such a hurry to dismiss the Church just to "protect" the Bible. We can love both, can't we?

I don’t see it as something which occurred as a result of the wisdom of men. Heaven help us if it did, for men can be quite foolish and wicked.

True, and why would God only guide these men in matters of choosing the Canon, and then leave? Didn't Christ promise the Church the Holy Spirit for all time? Didn't Christ promise to be with the Church for all time? Didn't Christ give the Church power to bind and loosen as in heaven? If God is "backing" the decision of the Canon, as He did in Acts 15 and the loosening of circumcision requirements, on what basis do we make the claim that God ONLY backed the Church in her Canon-making decisions? This is the basis for the Church's various dogmatic teachings of the Trinity and so forth - they are based on the presumption that God CONTINUES to guide the Church. If the Church was to rely on the wisdom of men, we would be like the Corinthians who ignore the Gospel of the Cross.

The scriptures represent the gospel once given, ... there is no need to grant any man greater authority than the scriptures ... because noone around today was around when the gospel once given was given.

Has this concept united the Church in its teachings? No. Believe it or not, the Bible is also an authority to Catholics - one that binds Tradition and not vice versus. What is important is not to ignore that thing called "Tradition", HOW we interpret the words of the Scriptures. You see, we read the Bible in a particular way based on what has been passed down. Certainly, you have experienced conversations with other Protestants where you disagree on Scriptures and its meaning? The heirachy is tasked with protecting proper interpretation, as we see in Paul's command to Timothy and Titus and the rest of the next generation of leaders of the Church. It is not a blank check to invent doctrines!

Regards

The Holy Spirit doesn't lead us to read the Bible if it means separating ourselves from the community that He is the Soul, the Life Force.

Oh, I forgot. The Holy Spirit completely turns His back on me, not just in interpretation, because I'm not Roman Catholic. I suppose when I read the Bible and agree with your interpretation, that is just me using my inner goodness? :)

FK: "You appear to be making this an either/or situation. All I'm trying to say is that learning the scriptures is a good part of sanctification."

Not at all. I am not making it an either/or situation. I am saying that becoming holy is not from bible reading per sec, but from the Holy Spirit.

But combined with your first statement, you certainly ARE saying that the only way to gain spiritually from Bible reading is at the direction of, or under the supervision of, the men of your Church. That is either/or. Either one is Roman Catholic and Bible reading is good, or one is anything else, and Bible reading does not benefit one spiritually. Sometimes, you all will say that outside of Roman Catholicism, it's all a "mystery" and others may be children of God. But at other times we get wholly exclusionary "either/or" (Roman Catholic or non-Christian) statements like this. IOW, you CANNOT consider me a Christian if you believe I get nothing from scripture reading since I am not Roman Catholic.

The Catholic Church has maintained the Bible and continues to hold a high place for it. COMMON SENSE dictates that we need a living body to interpret that book. Thus, your "Scriptures interpret themselves" is a desperate attempt to do away with the leadership established by Christ Himself.

In that case you either mean that God "needed" man's help, or you think that God ordained Himself to do a half-baked job that needed to be later completed SOLELY by the Roman Catholic Magisterium. Neither option is appealing to me. :)

Sanctification is about putting into practice what we have been taught, not about our knowledge of how many chapters are in 2 Corinthians or other such trivial information. Knowledge of Scriptures is not an indication of sanctification - merely consider the atheist who "knows" Scriptures...

It IS an "indication", but is not determinative. The determinator is true faith, for there can be no sanctification without faith. It sounds like your view of sanctification is merely physical and not so much spiritual. I see it very differently.

As a result, one can be quite holy without being intimately familiar with all the writings of the Bible.

And I have agreed with this. I have been saying that among those who DO have access to God's direct word, that learning it is beneficial spiritually.

Paul never makes the statement that we can ONLY be in Christ by bible reading...

Maybe not, but if one does not know about God's word, one way or another, then in what is such a person's faith. In men? I would reject that. God's word can be transmitted in more than one way. I really don't understand your arguing against the importance of scripture like this. I wouldn't expect you to say that ONLY extra-scriptural Tradition is important, and I do not think you believe that. Likewise, I have never said that scripture reading is the ONLY way to sanctification, just that it does lead there for those of faith.

Reading is where we get God's Word from, but certainly we can get God's Word from other sources, such as our teachers and preachers, as Paul writes in Ephesians.

Yes, of course, and as the very first Christians did.

Now, you may think I am defending NOT reading the Bible? Not at all. I am merely saying that reading the Bible ALONE is not enough, nor is it even ABSOLUTELY necessary to becoming sanctified.

Yes, that's what I was thinking, but I'll take your word for it here. :) Maybe there has been misunderstanding on both sides.

I find it interesting that you appear to be pushing forth a "self-sanctification" program. Our own reading doesn't make us holy, the Holy Spirit does. Isn't yours a "work" salvation? "Read the Bible and I will become holy"?

Case in point. I have no idea how the thrust of this applies to me, or how you could possibly think that it does.

But, uh [FK:] "[Being born again] was not an independent act, apart from what Jesus did on the cross. It was intricately associated with it. It was a "package deal". :)"

(did you mean "intimately" or "intricately" -- or both) but in general: YEAH THAT!

I suppose to one who is ultimately saved, it is both. :)

Good Friday is one act. It is not limited to the time and space of Good Friday 33 AD. I say "re" only because of the pesky time thing that I find myself in. IT's not REALLY a "re". It's just my temporality which makes a distinction between good Friday and last night's altar call.

Yes, there might be some occurrence vs. effect stuff in there too? I know I'm not comfortable in being able to accurately report what the Catholic view is on this yet.

In other news I want to resurrect the sidebar about how we're like and how we're different (or should be) from Islam, if you remember it.

I remember seeing some discussion on it, but I didn't participate that much because I don't really know much about Islam. I remember Islam being a faith wholly separate from Christianity because they do not recognize Christ as Lord, Savior, or God. To me, that's a "There you go"...

One interesting thing I remember was that I wondered aloud whether "fundamentalist" Protestants like me were really more like the moderate Muslims or the terrorists. I got some agreement for the latter, actually, (and I'm speaking of only on an intellectual plane, here). I would tend to agree with this in terms of following the respective texts. IOW, I thought it more likely that the moderate Muslims, who DON'T want to kill us, are more like the cafeteria Catholics and Southern Baptists that we both wish there were fewer of. That remains a very scary thought to me. :) I think Kosta was in on this part, but I'm not positive.

Frankly, I can't think of much of the FAITH of Islam that I would want to emulate, since, as is my understanding, most of the "nice" stuff really should only be directed to other Muslims according to their sacred texts.

Please explain your path of logic. Because I say that Bible reading does not necessarily lead to holiness (although it is instrumental in OUR day and age), I am now suggesting a God of the "Ten Suggestions"? How so?

As I "hope" I discovered in my last post to you, we may be just misunderstanding each other on this, and really don't disagree very much, so I would like to hear your response to that first before I throw any more rocks. :)

We become holy. While Bible reading is certainly a part of this, it is not instrumental in it.

Well, at least we are making some progress, but I would say that absorbing God's word is extremely important.

If only I could show you how many 'bible reading' Christians call me names, condemn me to hell, don't even consider me a Christian. They stoop to levels of conversation that are, quite frankly, embarrassing. This is from people who have been reading the Bible, according to them, for 20 plus years.

I am very sorry that you have had that experience. And I would say that you know much more about them than they of you. That's all on them. They should be pitied and prayed for. But what has this to do with what I am talking about? Faith is the primary thing, regardless of whether one reads the Bible or not. For those who have true faith, learning God's word, through reading if available, is spiritually beneficial. Always.

I would venture to say that many of these hypocrites are Bible reading men and women.

And the difference between "Bible-reading" and "Bible-believing" is the aforementioned faith.

As to your comments about "seeing", tell me, what makes you think I see actual blood and flesh when I partake in the Catholic Eucharist? What makes you think I see the Holy Spirit alighting on an infant when he becomes baptized?

Actually, in my post I could not find my comments along these lines, so any help would be appreciated. :)

We are told to test the truth - when speaking of traveling teachers where we DON'T know who appointed them.

I fully agree with Quester. Yours is an extra-scriptural qualification. Paul was never shy about declaring where his authority came from and yet he greatly praised the Bereans for questioning him. How do you propose that Paul was supposed to "prove it" at the time? A waxed seal? :) At the local church level among Southern Baptists, all from the senior pastor on down encourage everyone to question them scripturally. Now, they will probably have a good answer, and such, but they believe just as Paul taught, that the final authority is always God's word first. Of course Paul himself was in a little different position, because he was giving God's word in new ways for the first time in many cases. That makes my case stronger that ALL teachings should be questioned. Paul didn't seem to mind and he was the horse's mouth.

But where is the Scriptural verses that tell us that duly appointed apostles are to be second-guessed - ...

What? My beef isn't with what the Apostles said, it is with what the men of your Church SAID they said. That is a huge difference. :) The actual words, and your interpretation are simply too far apart for me to accept. On this issue it actually has nothing to do with the Apostles themselves.

How long would you allow a Christian who said the Trinity was from a teaching of the "whore of Babylon"???

If he attempted to teach it from a leadership position, he would be greatly counseled, and failing that, he would be thrown out. If he simply believed it, he would be counseled for as long as it took to turn him around. It would be most likely that he would leave on his own if it came to that. I see this as COMPLETELY different from my understanding of excommunication. We never claim to be dispensers of salvation. We don't effectively damn souls to hell by non-forgiveness by clergy. Our clergy does not pretend to wield that power, however, yours does, in fact.

I have heard many, many stories of lay Catholics going to great lengths to avoid being excommunicated, sometimes in a bad way, because they are scared to death of being forever damned by being cast out from the RCC. Many of these are, of course, related to dissolution of marriage issues, but there are also others related to relatives wanting their loved ones to be buried in a Catholic cemetery, and I'm sure a few other issues as well. (I'm not suggesting a ton, because I know that in Catholicism confession and genuine repentance can fix just about anything. And I'm good with that.)

Please consider what I have said.

I always do, and I know that you think about what I have said too. That's a big reason I so enjoy our conversations. :)

Isn't this sin John is speaking of [1 John 5:16-17] the one found in Luke [12:10] ?

Yeah, it could very well be. I'm not sure, and I admit I'm not rock solid on the whole unforgivable sin thing. What gets me is that when the John verse: "17 All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death." is matched up to "the wages of sin is death" (I note the singular), I have to conclude that John may be only talking about physical death. In 17, he doesn't even say "equals" death, he just says "lead[s] to". In my mind, the totality of scripture is that sin itself is never excusable in the "eternity" sense. I don't see how God could let some (actual) sins "slip by" and not be dealt with before one of His children enters Heaven. I think that Christ has dealt with each and every sin committed by one of His children.

The next two verses tell us when that "unforgivable sin" can happen. My understanding is that only the elect would be able to commit that sin. If this is true then all other sins could be forgiven.

I'm not sure I'm following. If an elect could commit an unforgivable sin, or let's say if he ever DID commit an unforgivable sin, then how could he be an elect? In the Reformed understanding, ALL the sins of the elect are dealt with, "forgiven" before they enter Heaven. To us, God's standards would require no less.

I see what you may be saying as quite a contrast to what MD is talking about. Venial sins are, by my understanding of Catholicism, comparatively Mickey Mouse sins, and God might let them slide. However, an unforgivable sin, it would seem to me, would be huge, and never allowed to slide when committed by anyone.

"not only does the movie get the Virgin Birth wrong, it thoroughly Protestantizes its portrayal of Our Lady."

It does not 'Protestatize' the story, but rather presents it through the eyes of it's Director and writers, who as far as I am aware, do not officially represent any 'Protestant' organization . It should be noted that scripture does not say "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." Neither has the catholic or Catholic church taught this for 2000 years (implying that it was taught from the time of Christ).

While I'm not aware of when the first reference arose, I do not believe it was within the first 300 years of the church. If anyone does know of when the first reference was, that would be very helpful.

To contend that Catholic treatments are "characterized by humility and reverence", while the "Protestant and humanistic approach relies almost entirely upon complete character identification" is also a gross oversimplification. It also improperly associates Protestantism, humanism, Presbyterianism and Hardwicke, as if they are all somehow synonymous. I find this type of guilt by association only creates disunity and confusion.

Similarly, Gibson's Passion was not the "masterpiece' accepted by both Protestants and Catholics as implied. While a sincere effort, it contained scenes and perspectives which were based on Catholic traditions and Marianism, which created confusion and discomfort among viewers who were attempting to reconcile the movie with the strict adherence to scripture which many purported it to be.

"All teach the painlessness of the (virgin) birth as a logical consequence of its miraculous nature". God seldom limits himself to worldly 'logic'. He chooses the broken and lowly things of this world to glorify him. He sent a Messiah who had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him. He chose a marginal and rebellious people to be his Chosen People. God does not function by human wisdom.

For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom (1 Cor 1:25)

There is a danger to trying to ascribe to scripture that which is a product of human conjecture.

Harley: "You can’t say you [have] free will and then say that it’s limited."

Why not? The exercise of freedom is itself a kind of limitation. Exercising my freedom to spend my money on a Ferrari means I can't get a Maserati -- not this week, anyway .....

Yes, you are talking about choices, just as I have been with Kosta recently. God "could" poof both cars into existence, but we know for sure that He doesn't in all cases. He makes choices too.

But to get back to your point, MD, in going back through the posts, I think Harley was really zooming in on the true freedom that comes with salvation, as compared to the earlier state of the elect.

In truth, I have openly argued for a "limited free will" when referring to the lost. I have said that they DO have free will to sin, but are not free to do good in God's eyes, it is a limited free will. So, I must confess to contributing to muddying the waters when it comes to presenting the "Reformed view" on free will.

My side is often accused of having a "robot faith". So, I will put forth the idea that a lost person DOES have "free will", that is to sin. It is "limited". The response I always get is that THAT isn't true free will. However, now you and Kosta are both putting forth ideas of limited free will. This is new to me, so perhaps our disagreement is less on the concept of limited free will, but more on the degree. That is, for the lost person. Now, as for after salvation, while Harley and I would agree that neither of us is "free" to be elected President tomorrow, that we are TRULY freed from sin in the best sense that God has intended for His beloved children.

I still think that "free will" is the most loaded term on the entire Religion Forum and that ALL of us, on all sides, have to be SO careful how we use it when writing. I'm among the worst, so I can say that. :)

FK: "In my own prayer life, it is not uncommon at all for me to pray only in thanksgiving, without asking for anything at all."

Except to be heard! You want God to acknowledge your prayer. Surely you don't pray to a wall.

Well, that's fine, but I don't count that as supplication, do you? Maybe we use the word differently. Besides, the Bible already says He hears my prayers. I don't worry about that.

Why is [prayer] good if it cannot change something, or fulfill something other than what was determined?

I've already answered this. Prayer is still good because it is an obedience to God, and it is a communication with God. Communication with God from the true believer is almost always good for the person making it, barring sinful communication. Changing what is preordained is never my intellectual aim. The prayer itself was also preordained, so what am I to do, attempt to refuse it? Of course not. I don't believe myself to be in the business of changing God's mind, I believe my business is in obedience to Him.

[Prayer] doesn't merit anything. It doesn't earn you anything.

It should never be done for "merit", but in the reward judgment higher prayer could be given "credit" for obedience, since God clearly commands it. In addition, whether one gets "merits" or "credits" is really irrelevant as a reason for us to think about now. The Christian who prays more is a better off Christian on earth. Prayer is good for him.

But you will be sanctified whether you pray for it or not if God predestined you to be sanctified. If not, no amount of prayer will result in your sanctification.

As I said, the prayer itself is part of the preordination. I don't believe it is possible for God to sanctify a person, without also preordaining that person to prayer. That is, in whatever form if we want to include unusual cases. That would make no sense for God to talk to us, but not arrange for us to talk to Him.

Chances are those who choose satan as their master will be praying to him and not to God.

I was speaking of only to our God. However, I would say that in some form or another, I agree with you fully on this.

FK: "Prayer is for OUR benefit during our lives here on earth. With more prayer comes a better quality of life while we are here."

How so? What does it change, what does it accomplish? What does it get you that God didn't already decide to give you? How does it make your quality of life better?

What? How could you ask such a thing? :) Does your prayer life not enrich you in ways you were not expecting or asking for? While God gives me what He has already decided to give me, it will be after I pray this time, or that time, or some other time. He betters my life after I complete within time what He has ordained. For me, within time, it IS a real change.

Really? And your prayers that He may continue to sanctify you is not about change?

Change for me, but not for Him. And whenever I pray about anything in this type of category it is never like "Please God continue to sanctify me, because you might stop at any moment except for a prayer like this". No, no. Those kind of prayers are really all in the mode of thanksgiving and my communicating to Him that I DO rely on the promises He has already made to me. I reaffirm that I still believe in those promises, thanks to Him. IOW, I am giving glory.

What do you communicate with God? Baseball scores?

Well, I did thank Him after the Series last year, but ... :) Anyway, as I surmised above, we apparently use the word "supplicate" differently, and that's OK. To me it means: "I don't have 'X', please give me 'X'". I think that "prayer" certainly includes that, but it is also much more, including thanksgiving, and also what you might consider idle talk. While some of my prayer is of the normal, "official" type, it is not above me at all to talk to God about "nothing", in the Seinfeldian sense.

It is perfectly normal for me to give a quick thanks to God for allowing me to duck at the right time to avoid bumping into the weird neighbor lady in the grocery store, or that kind of thing. I talk to Him in short spurts all the time, in addition to what you may call more normal, formal prayer. I don't think it is possible for me to waste God's time at all. My view is that whenever it occurs to me to talk to God for any Biblical reason, such as thanksgiving over "nothing", He would rather me do that at that particular moment than anything else in the world. There are bigger issues involved, and I have explained.

We communicate on the FR, back and forth, trying to outwit each other. Certainly that's not the "communication" we have with God (or at least I should hope it's not!).

That's right! Certainly there are many things you say to me that are much more stimulating than many things I say to God! :)

I am serious about that, but I have to include that I do not know how other Reformers see this. So, for now, this is all just me. :) My being able to take a single thought to God, of any importance, is what I call a personal relationship. He already knows me, He already knows what I'm thinking. I figure: How can I lose by choosing to bring it to Him? I want to tell Him myself. He'll make "time" to listen to me. I'm His child. :)

From my understanding there is only one unpardonable sin that an elect can commit and the only time that can be commited would be when they are delivered before Satan (death) and the Holy Spirit speaks through them. Only the elect are called to do this. That testimony will open many eyes and ears to truth. If they don't allow that to happen they are condemned as Satan and the fallen angels are.

And when they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say:
For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say.(Luke 12:11-12)

What hour? I believe this "hour" is Satan's hour of temptation referred to in Revelation 17:

12.And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. 14.These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for He is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with Him are called, and chosen, and faithful.

The chosen, called and faithful are His elect. They are the ones that face Satan (death) and allow the Holy Spirit to speak through them (as on Pentecost). All others will be deceived by Satan:

Rev.12:9.and the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
11.And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto death. (Death is one of Satan's names)

If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and He shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. (1John 5:16)

Intercessory prayer is very powerful but here we are told that we should not pray for one committing that sin, the unpardonable sin. Note that here too "sin" is singular when it is about the unpardonable one, as the one you noticed, "the wages of sin is death".

In my mind, the totality of scripture is that sin itself is never excusable in the "eternity" sense. I don't see how God could let some (actual) sins "slip by" and not be dealt with before one of His children enters Heaven. I think that Christ has dealt with each and every sin committed by one of His children

I'm not sure of this at all. My belief is that He died for our sins but we must repent of those sins to be forgiven.

Acts 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.

If we haven't repented but believe, we will be saved but what happens to the unrepented for sins?

Mark 16:16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

"However, an unforgivable sin, it would seem to me, would be huge, and never allowed to slide when committed by anyone".

As far as I know there is only one and it is huge. He won't allow it to slide. That is why only the elect can commit it. They know truth while the spirit of slumber has been placed on others for their protection, so they can't commit it. It's only when you know the truth of Satan coming first, pretending to be Christ, that you will be held responsible.

.....Ping

This is me and not the RC Church here, okay?

I like to distinguish between the STATE of Sin and various pertiklar ACTS which are sinful or "sins". "Big 'S' Sin" and "little 's' sins".

When we're in the state of sin we commit sins. Cain't do otherwise without grace. But In "Sin" we are headed for death. We are carnal, not pneumatic (!) and since the Fall, flesh without spirit is moribund.

FOr us'ns, when you're in a state of Grace, you could catch yourself looking at someone especially babe-alicious and entertaining the notion of using her for your psychological and physical pleasure, which would be, inter alia, a sin against charity. But it's SUCH a habit for the average guy type individual that it almost happens on auto-pilot.

So a couple of scenarii: (1) You find yourself as above and say, YEAH! that's a fun fantasy, I believe I will continue to fantasize about using this person, abusing her and my body, committing the sins which "in action, lust" (that would be Shakespeare) leads to in order to enable the tryst in the No-tell motel.

In that scenario, I am obviously enjoying the concept of a whole bunch of sins of which "lust" or "adultery in the heart" could be viewed as just a part. I am in my imagination eagerly endorsing (though of course I TELL myself it's just a fantasy) rejecting God's teaching, will, and charity and in general using a young woman for whom Jesus was content to die as a device, as I say, to make me feel good in lots of different ways.I respectfully submit that there is a huge difference in what MY response needs to be on either scenario. Whatever else needs to happen, I need to do some serious inventory on my self, my faith, and the way and purposefullness with which I approach God.

The second scenario though is more like a brief and quickly noticed failure to obey Peter's (I think) advice to be sober and vigilant. The minute I catch myself, I already have a plan to deal with the problem - a plan which is or at least includes asking for grace and forgiveness.

I sort of kind of tentatively think that while both offenses, compared with the glorious purity of God are obscene, the first involves the eager imperilling of one's own soul, the enjoyment of a fantasy of life without grace, a real and intentional dabbling and dawdling in the possibility that just maybe life withOUT Jesus and all that pesky charity and truth stuff would be better.

I'm trying to suggest that both acts are sinful, but one amounts to a rejection of grace. I don't mind that the boss-lady thinks Robert Redford looks better than I do. But our relationship would be in trouble if she was spending a LOT of time imagining life with him.

That's kind of sort of where we're going with this mortabl venial thing.

But it's just a theological "!!!TILT!!! to suggest that God would "let them slide", and part of the idea of purgatory is, in fact, straightening out the books on the consequences of (or healing self-inflicted wounds caused by) venial sins -- all of 'em.

Inquisition? Please check this. I might be off base here.

FK: "When you pray "Our Father who art in Heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done", are you making a request as if it might not happen but for your prayer and others??? Of course not."

You are such a lawyer, FK! :)

Well thank you! :)

Do you really think I am going to "forget" the rest of the Lord's Prayer? But you seem to have selectively done just that!

Nope, I'm just talking about these lines.

What we see in the first part of the Lord's Prayer are the usual platitudes given to those in power. We also recognize that His will is universal. He is the absolute Sovereign of all that exists (in heaven and on earth).

OK, but what you appear to comparatively dismiss as platitudes I call legitimate praise through prayer. I would imagine that many of your Church's standard prayers include such praises. I was just trying to show that "prayer" is more than just asking for stuff.

The "meat" of the Lord's Prayer is not telling Him how great God is (the platitudes are considered a required introduction when addressing someone superior even though that someone knows he is superior), but to supplicate Him to feed/sustain us, to forgive us, to lead us in the right direction and to save us.

Forgetting any notion of "need", God either "wants" to be given glory or He does not. These parts of prayer that you do not seem to think are very important are a very real way in which we give Him glory. There are lots of these passages in scriptures, and I do not see them as fluff. I think they are important.

The prayer itself was also preordained, so what am I to do, attempt to refuse it?

Where does it say in the Scriptures that the prayer was preordained?

The Christian who prays more is a better off Christian on earth. Prayer is good for him.

You keep saying this, but you offer no evidence or even reason for it. There are people who never pray and enjoy fantastic blessings.

I don't believe it is possible for God to sanctify a person, without also preordaining that person to prayer.

Huh? Where do you get that from?

That would make no sense for God to talk to us, but not arrange for us to talk to Him.

And raising people from the dead "makes sense?" Since when is "making sense" a pre-condition for God's work?

Does your prayer life not enrich you in ways you were not expecting or asking for?

You are asking someone with a completely different mindset. Of course I would say it enriches my life, but in my case this makes sense. Looking through the prism of the Reformed theology doesn't.

Anyway, as I surmised above, we apparently use the word "supplicate" differently ... including thanksgiving, and also what you might consider idle talk.

Thanksgiving is not a supplication, FK.

It is perfectly normal for me to give a quick thanks to God for allowing me to duck at the right time to avoid bumping into the weird neighbor lady in the grocery store

It's not a favor, FK. And what would you have said if He didn't let you duck? Shake your fist at Him? Seems like you give thanks for "getting" something, and then you call it supplication, which is preordained, so you have no choice but to press the "Play" button. Yet you never talk about disasters. Do you give thanks for bad days too? Should you? I think you should give thanks to the Lord for every day of your life that you know Him, not only when he helps you duck.

My being able to take a single thought to God, of any importance, is what I call a personal relationship.

He knows your thoughts whether you have a personal relationship with God or not. Him knowing them does not constitute a personal relationship with you. You bringing them to Him is also "preordained" in your theology, so it is not your decision but His. Ergo, what you have is instructions to bring your thoughts to God and you simply react as told.

I wouldn't call that a personal relationship. That's something you may have with your boss, or a superior officer in the military. Obedience is not a personal relationship.

Personal relationships are spontaneous and personal. In your case they are preprogrammed instructions.

He already knows me, He already knows what I'm thinking. I figure: How can I lose by choosing to bring it to Him? I want to tell Him myself. He'll make "time" to listen to me. I'm His child.

Sounds like you are describing your therapist, save for the child part.

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.