This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
Locked on 02/07/2013 8:58:03 AM PST by Religion Moderator, reason:
Childish behavior |
Posted on 01/16/2013 8:57:49 AM PST by marshmallow
General audience, Benedict XVI defines the Incarnation as "something unimaginable, the face of God can be seen, the process that began with Abraham is fulfilled." The Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, he asks "for the great gift" to "proclaim together that Jesus is the Savior of the world."
Vatican City (AsiaNews) - "The desire to know the face of God is in every man, even the atheists," but this desire is only realized by following Christ, in whom, in the Incarnation, "something unimaginable took place, the journey that began with Abraham is fulfilled. He is the Son, the fullness of all Revelation; the mediator who shows us the face of God. "
And "to proclaim together that Jesus is the Saviour of the world" Benedict XVI asked for incessant prayers for "the great gift" of Christian unity in the forthcoming week, which begins on the 18th of this month.
Previously, in his catechesis, he again reflected on the meaning of Christmas, in a commentary on John's Gospel in which the apostle Philip asks Jesus to show them the Father. The answer of Jesus, "introduces us to the heart of the Church's Christological faith; For the Lord says: "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father" (Jn 14:9).This expression summarizes the novelty of the New Testament, the novelty that appeared in the cave of Bethlehem: God can be seen, he showed his face is visible in Jesus Christ".
The theme of "seeking the face of God" is present throughout the Old Testament, so much so that the Hebrew term "face", occurs no less than 400 times, 100 of which refer to God." The of Jewish religion which the religion forbids all images, "for God can not be depicted," and "can not be reduced to an object," tells us that "God...
(Excerpt) Read more at asianews.it ...
That, too, is part of the Westminster confession in the section about God's eternal decree.
No one denies that Paul was an extreme case. Not that there havent been other dramatic examples of people turning from extreme hate and persecution to following Christ. The point still remains and can not be definitively proven either way that Paul or any of those others could have simply returned to their evil ways. Its simply speculation that anyone is left with no choice and against their will, are forced to follow Christ. Only the Catholic church and other cults try those tactics.
You have done what no one on this site has been able to accomplish...
I'm speechless...
This is a happy day for many here.
I think on thing we should all agree on. That is that our fallible minds cannot fully comprehend what predestination really means or entails. It seems to me that trying to pin predestination down causes all kinds of problems with other parts of scripture.
There's the weakness in the Calvinist position.
When they claim that God hated Esau before he was born, it indicates that the Calvinist position sees God bound by time before time began. As opposed to the position you pointed out that God already knew what Esau's choices and lifestyle were because He's outside time.
So when He speaks IN time before Esau and Jacob are born, to us it seems like He's making an arbitrary decision to hate one and love the other based on who knows what criteria, if we really don't understand time and eternity.
God's decision to not bless the firstborn, to *hate* him if you will, and to bless the younger is because God will not bless sin and would be based on foreknowledge, not on capricious choice.
Hey, it doesn't even have to be a legalistic believers in Judaism to see a radical transformation.
Been there, done that.
Thankfully, God did not have to knock me to the ground and blind me to get my attention even though ti wasn't easy.
OK, help me out here....
My mind isn’t working so well from a cold and related sinus issues so I’m having trouble concentrating, but....
Is what Aquinas saying that what God refers to as *hate* is actually His administering of justice for the sin of that person? So God’s saying He *hated* Esau was because He wasn’t blessing him, that Esau was being treated as if he was hated?
Or something like that?
Ok, I really dont know how to take that one. LOL Just because I didnt know if Satan took a cab or not?
Great way to put it. I sometimes feel I lack the correct words to use. You nailed it.
LOL Pray real hard for understanding then read it slowly about three times. I got that God hates the sin but not the sinner type thing. God hated the things that Esau would produce. Here was a key phrase to me. by God’s wishing some greater good, which cannot be without the privation of a lesser good. So God hated Esau because he would produce something that would hinder the greater good.
That is a spot on observation ,CB.
I will FRmail you some of Aquinas writings that I think you will enjoy from the Notre Dame site when I get back from my trip .
Sorry,dear sister.I meant to ping you to post 531
Well, sit down stf, cause I’m with you guys on that, too, as much as I understand it.
This is a point which I like in the confession. I don't wish to split hairs, especially since I have few left, but I think there is a distinction between "the will of the creatures" compared to "the [sic]free will of the creatures". Will implies incomplete and limited knowledge. Free will means complete knowledge and understanding.
By definition, the term "free will" means "the power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances". This certainly wasn't the case for Adam and Eve and it's certainly not the case for us. Eve was influenced by Satan. Adam by Eve. And just like them we are influenced by events around us. We are incapable of making choices that are unconstrained by lust or greed or sheer independence from God. Consequently, our wills are not free but bound to the events that interrupt our lives.
The term, "free will", by definition is a corrupt construct that shouldn't be used. It gives us a sense that we know and can make judgments apart from any influence or divine will. And therein lies the heresy which influences every doctrine it touches. The root meaning is that we don't need God's divine will to guide us.
"Will of the creatures" is far more accurate and appropriate.
Why is this not surprising? Arminianism is simply a shade of Roman Catholicism.
Theres where the miscommunication comes in. When I see choice I see free will ie the freedom of will to make a choice. I didnt take free will to the extreme that that definition does.
>> The term, "free will", by definition is a corrupt construct that shouldn't be used. Under the definition you gave I would agree.
>> "Will of the creatures" is far more accurate and appropriate.<<
Perhaps that is correct. Or at least some variation of it.
To accuse of Arminianism because of one small point is rather disingenuous.
So is it the position that God hated Esau based on foreknowledge the Arminian one and the position that God hated Esau based on some arbitrary criteria only beknowst to God the Calvinist one Calvinist?
Does Calvinism require that people believe that the reason God *hated* Esau can't be known or that it is part of a choice of God's that Esau was simply the target of?
You heretic, you.
Hey, that sounds familiar, doesn't it?
LOL At least -—— is consitent.
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.