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

Asia News ^ | 1/16/13

[marshmallow]

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

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

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

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

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

[HarleyD]

I do. I want to understand where the Catholics and others who are in error get their error from and how it progressed over time.

I wanted to know the same thing. That is an extremely long and difficult journey. I spent almost two years looking through not only the writings of the church but through events happening in history. The change is subtle. One can see it in different documents. For example, compare the Council of Orange with the Council of Trent

Contrasting Augustine and the Council of Orange (529 AD) with The Council of Trent (1563)

The Council of Oranges states if anyone say they can come to God on their own free will, they are accursed. One thousand years later the Council of Trent says that if anyone say they CANNOT come to God on their own free will, they are accursed.

Over the span of a 1,000 years or more Catholic teaching was slowly modified. While our Catholic friends have maintain they follow the early teachings, in reality they do not. This is not my opinion but plainly stated on the Catholic dictionary NewAdvent, to which I frequently refer. One can look up justification, atonement, or a number of other articles and find statements that imply the fathers didn't have all their facts, they were bigoted, or this view was changed by more enlighten fathers.

But the biggest problem I see is that Catholics no longer place the sacred word of God over their own writings as did the fathers. The fathers knew the scriptures were inerrant and Augustine writes how they were so concerned about corruption of the text that they sealed them up. From this we get the Protestant bible. 1,000 years later the Council of Trent tried to change it. Today, Catholics will tell us "Church" writings are just as important as scripture. Just ask them. I have yet to get a response to how scripture differs from Church councils. They have fulfilled Augustine's and Jerome's greatest fear.

Protestants are no less susceptible to corruption. Protestants lead by Luther (and others) realized the corruption of Church doctrine. They developed the 5 solas :

Sola Scriptura: The Scripture Alone is the Standard

Soli Deo Gloria! For the Glory of God Alone

Solo Christo! By Christ's Work Alone are We Saved

Sola Gratia: Salvation by Grace Alone

Sola Fide: Justification by Faith Alone

Five Solas

Soon after the forming of Protestantism, John Calvin was asked to put together a systematic theology of the Protestant religion. Shortly after Calvin's work some Dutch Protestants led by Joseph Arminius challenged the basic tenets of the Solas in what became known as the Remonstrant. These laid out five key principles which were out of alignment with the solas. There is some evidence that this movement was led by the Catholic Jesuits to undermined the solas. This is bore out by the fact that the five articles of the Remonstrant strangely aligns with what was being taught by the Council of Trent.

To counter the Remonstrant, the Synod of Dort was formed by the Protestants which branded Arminian and the Remonstrant as heresy. From the Synod they developed what has become known as the TULIP. The TULIP was not developed by Calvin but by the Protestant Synod. These were five major Protestant points to counter the Remonstrant and to align them with the solas.

Comparison between Remonstrant and TULIP

But even with this effort, today one sees the effect of the Remonstrant heresy. The Remonstrant is embraced while the TULIP and Calvin's work is derided. The Five Solas are almost forgotten. The Reformed faith isn't some wacky offshoot. Instead, it is a remnant of what Protestant truly was.

There is far, far more including the impact of the Renaissance, the great schism with the Orthodox in 1000, and the Crusades to mention a few. But if you trace it all the way back really there are only two views on Christianity; monergism and synergism. Synergism is God+you. The Eastern Orthodox view is a true synergist church with working for their salvation. Most Protestants are synergist although they don't like to admit it. They like to think they hold to the solas Christ only. Yet they add that they must make a "free will" choice-something taught in the Remonstrant.

Monergism adheres to the principles of the TULIP, the Synod of Dort, and finds it's roots in the western church-through Augustine. Calvin's work is only a byproduct of Protestanism. Other works includes the confessionals such as the Westminster Confession and the London Baptist Confession. These are nothing more than points and scripture which supports the five solas. But I did not become a Reformer through Calvin's works or the confessionals. I became a Reformer through Augustine's works. In fact, I haven't read much of Calvin's writings.

[HarleyD]

We’ve got to wonder how they went through the Red Sea and still didn’t believe, but that’s what happened for many (most?) of them. As the scripture said, the Lord hadn’t given them the heart to perceive.

Sounds like you answered your own question.

[CynicalBear]

Well that should teach you to pay attention.

[CynicalBear]

>> If God chooses only those who he foresaw would choose him, then the whole process is out of God's hands and therefore the choice of who makes it into heaven would be entirely arbitrary.<<

That’s a rather large leap. And I think doesn’t take into consideration the passages of scripture that also tell us that God “will have mercy on who He will have mercy”. So there also has to be cases where extends mercy for His own reasons. I would also direct you to my statements that there is no way we can totally understand. We can only know what we have been told in scripture.

>> His reasons are entirely unknown to us, but we can rest assured that while the decisions of Men are often capricious and arbitrary, the decisions of God are NEVER capricious or arbitrary.<<

You won’t get any debate from me on that other than to say what has been revealed in scripture.

>> Whose decision would you be more comfortable with in regard to your own destiny? Yours or God's?<<

I’m going to go with the understanding that that is a rhetorical question. Interesting isn’t it that we are left only with faith?

[CynicalBear]

Great post!

[CynicalBear]

>> It's got issues, though.<<

I knew that when I posted it. Our fallible minds can’t really understand or fathom how God works which leads to not being able to explain fully or completely.

>> The Lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world.<<

That would bring up a whole separate subject. When was the foundation of the world? Some believe that this earth was created form nothing approximately 6000 years ago. Others believe that the world as we know it was “reformed” from a previous “world” that God destroyed after Lucifer rebelled and corrupted the entire population of that world which God destroyed leaving the world we know “without form and void”. That would inject an entirely different understanding in that the “foundation of the world” would mean that this was just a continuation of a previous corruption by Satan and God was giving mankind another chance.

>> If so, isn't that a clear indication that there is something better in YOU that brought about your salvation as opposed to that sorry sinner over there who didn't figure it out?<<

And we know that can’t possibly be from what we are told in scripture. That’s why discussions like this always must be viewed with the understanding that none of us really know the complete picture and go back to the realization that we are saved by “FAITH” and humbly admit that we are at God’s mercy and reliant on His grace. We cannot rely on any man’s explanation or understanding including any of the so called “confessions” or “doctrines” or “traditions”.

>> So, I just allow that, along with the Apostle Paul and Lydia, that the Lord made me awake, that I didn't do it myself.<<

That is the bottom line isn’t it. One day we will see clearly but certainly not while here in these carnal bodies. Come quickly Lord Jesus!

[CynicalBear]

Reading through that post one thought kept coming to my mind. “It really doesn’t matter”. There are two things that I have relied on while growing in the faith.

The first is that the writings of the apostles about what Jesus taught and the Old Testament are the only real authority we have to rely on.

The second is that for our salvation we rely on the atoning blood of Jesus alone through Christ’s faith freely given to us and not of ourselves.

With those two truths one always views all of these discussions as peripheral to salvation. Unless one requires something other than Christ’s atoning sacrifice and focus on Him alone none of these peripheral details are as important as one would think from these contentious discussions.

[metmom]

Reading through the book of Acts, I don’t see anyone preaching....*Maybe you’re one of the elect ones God chose to save. If you are, be prepared for God to move in your lives. etc.*

On the contrary, they preached Jesus and Him crucified to ALL people everywhere they went as much as they could and when people were convicted, and asked what they needed to do, the answer was *believe*.

They never got into theological debates about HOW or WHY.

Early in the thread I commented that....”I really don’t see the point in getting into some of these nuances. They may be interesting theological discussions for the philosophical types, but have little practical bearing on the living of our day to day lives.” It threw some into a tail spin and I got piled on because of it, but I still stand by that.

My thinking that God brings people to a point of decision and allows them the option of deciding for or against Him does not affect my responsibility to grow in Christ, witness of Him to others, show is love to others, or any of the other practical outworking of my salvation.

Without that enlightening, I was a slave to sin. After my decision, I am a slave to Christ, sealed by the Holy Spirit to the day of redemption. My belief that I am given the option of saying yes or no does not by default mean that I have to believe, or do believe, that salvation is dependent on works.

Scripture gives plenty of evidence to support both the positions that it’s God’s ultimate choice vs permitting man to choose after having been called and drawn and given the option. Scripture indicates that God does actively choose some but in other cases, that He allows others to do the choosing. I don’t see that God is bound to do everything the same way all the time and I’m not going to put God in that kind of box.

I’s sure there will be those who disagree but that’s too bad for I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I’ve committed to Him against that day.

[metmom]

My thinking that God brings people to a point of decision and allows them the option of deciding for or against Him also does not mean that I believe in the unrealistic definition of *free will* that some demand that it mean.

[CynicalBear]

I’m with you all the way on that one. If someone wants to believe in strict predestination that’s fine but don’t call me a heretic if I don’t. God is rather plain on some things like no idols and such but other things are pretty much cloudy which indicates to me that it’s not something we need to fret ourselves about. Anything beyond “believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved – and your house” is inching closer and closer to legalism and we know God’s attitude about that.

[xzins]

It is not as simple as: you decided.

First, God opened your heart to respond to the gospel, and then you decided.

It is a distinction that we miss sometimes, but it is an important distinction.

God is the first cause and must receive all the glory.

[betty boop]

Certainly God's will is creative, e.g. "let there be light." But His will is also permissive, e.g. Satan's rebellion.... Truly, if God did not have a permissive will, this universe would look strongly deterministic.

Looks that way to me, too, dearest sister in Christ — God demonstrates both creative and permissive will; otherwise you're stuck with "hard" determinism.

RE: God's creative will — God Himself tells us in the Holy Scriptures that He made a "good," not a "perfect" creation. Had He made it "perfect," it would be "fully determined" and unable to change in any respect. Plus it would be senseless to speak of a "perfect" creation that contains evil — and difficult to avoid the conclusion that God Himself created the evil. And given the evil that we so clearly see playing out in the world — e.g., the Holocaust, Sandy Hook, etc., etc. — this would make God a monster. Which of course He is not.

Only the aspect of permissive will can give scope for human free will and human creativity. True, man can use his free will to choose evil, to turn away from God. But the point is evil enters the world through man, through his fallen sinful nature inherited from Adam, not through God's creative action. That is to say, God allows, but does not Himself create, Evil.

And it is also true, as you wrote: "But despite His permissive will, I aver that no one can thwart His creative will."

God's name is I AM!

Thank you ever so much, dear sister, for your eloquent essay/post!

[CynicalBear]

>>It is a distinction that we miss sometimes, but it is an important distinction.<<

Not a distinction that I have missed. Nowhere in my posts do I say that we can accept the gift of salvation without the act of God in our hearts. People don’t get saved without God first working in their heart. Nor have I seen anyone here who would or has said that without the initial work of God we would even turn to God.

>>God is the first cause and must receive all the glory.<<

Amen to that!

[metmom]

It is not as simple as: you decided. First, God opened your heart to respond to the gospel, and then you decided.

I never stated otherwise.

Reread my posts. I don't know how I could be clearer on that.

[xzins]

If you will reread your 568 and 569, you'll see the origin of my comment. God's opening our hearts doesn't shine through in those posts as clearly as does "I decided".

Not to say it isn't there, but I like underscoring it and bringing it out of the background. :>)

What it boils down to is us proclaiming the gospel so that those God will open the hearts of will respond.

How shall they hear without someone telling them?

I personally think its even deeper than that...

14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!" 16 But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our message?" 17 Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.

There is a tremendous responsibility laid upon us to tell others about Christ? For whatever reason, God uses our proclaiming in the opening of the hearts of others. That's why it's so important that we proclaim.

1 Corinthians 1:21 KJV For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe ..

Will one of the elect (those God foreknew) NOT get saved due to our faithlessness? No. But, in the outworking of God's plan on the earth, like with prayer, we don't know that they might have been saved sooner had we been faithful.

[xzins]

If you will reread your 568 and 569, you'll see the origin of my comment. God's opening our hearts doesn't shine through in those posts as clearly as does "I decided".

Not to say it isn't there, but I like underscoring it and bringing it out of the background. :>)

What it boils down to is us proclaiming the gospel so that those God will open the hearts of will respond.

How shall they hear without someone telling them?

I personally think its even deeper than that...

14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!" 16 But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our message?" 17 Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.

There is a tremendous responsibility laid upon us to tell others about Christ? For whatever reason, God uses our proclaiming in the opening of the hearts of others. That's why it's so important that we proclaim.

1 Corinthians 1:21 KJV For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe ..

Will one of the elect (those God foreknew) NOT get saved due to our faithlessness? No. But, in the outworking of God's plan on the earth, like with prayer, we don't know that they might have been saved sooner had we been faithful.

[metmom]

I’ve clearly stated it elsewhere on the thread such as in posts 147, 258, 301, and 462.

[metmom]

I agree.

Also, if we don’t share the gospel, we will not have the privilege of participating in that person’s salvation.

[HarleyD]

Well, I leave for a few hours and we have a hundred posts. :O) This will take some time.

But the words of God are spirit and life whereas the words of men are neither spirit nor life.

You should know me very well by now Alamo-Girl that I'm strictly a sola scriptura type of person. So I will assume that you are just reiterating the need to support sola scriptura.

That being said we must remember the example set forth the the Bereans that they were more nobler for they search the scriptures to see IF THESE THINGS WERE SO. They were preached to and then they checked the preaching against the scriptures.

There is certainly nothing wrong with reading a commentary, a book about faith, or even a doctrinal analysis. We grow from the things others have learned. But everything should be measured and compared against the scriptures.

In fact, if memory serves me correctly, you are a co-author of a book aren't you? I assume there must have been some insight that you wished to share with those who read your book. I'm sure you would agree that your book isn't to the level of scripture. But that's OK as it probably includes some wisdom that you have learned along your journey.

There is nothing wrong with reading other people's doctrinal interpretation. In fact I would prefer to know exactly what people are thinking. Yes all of this must be measured against the infallible word of God. But it is a mistake to think one has all knowledge just by reading the Bible. After all, isn't that what Sunday "School" is for?

[HarleyD]

With those two truths one always views all of these discussions as peripheral to salvation.

At the risk of sound cheeky and self-righteous; I'm not interested in being saved per se. I'm interested in knowing God. So, yes, knowing what is the truth is very important. It was so important to Augustine that he burned a good portion of his life's work.