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

Asia News ^ | 1/16/13

[marshmallow]

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

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

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

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

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

[CynicalBear]

You are correct of course and “saved” was perhaps the incorrect term to use. The Israelites who followed the laws of God “as best humanly possible” and had a love for God were certainly not condemned however were they. I only used the phrase to illustrate that the Old Testament is referred to as the “age of the law” and after Christ is referred to as the dispensation of grace.

“If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward.” (Ephesians 3:2)

Now we know of course that all those of the Old Testament were also saved because of their faith but they were also under the law. Not just the ten commandments but also all the “moral law,” the Ten Commandments governed the moral conduct of the nation of Israel. The “civil law,” that governed the social conduct of the nation of Israel. The “dietary law,” that governed the health of the nation of Israel. And the “ceremonial law,” that governed the religious conduct of the nation of Israel.

Perhaps I could have used a different word. What word would you have used to better discribe?

[HarleyD]

If people were staring hell in the face as it were, I doubt anyone would choose it....People have been deceived about what they're really rejecting and accepting, and choosing.

BINGO!!! EXACTLY!!!

Oba_1:3 The pride of your heart has deceived you, you who live in the clefts of the rock, in your lofty dwelling, who say in your heart, "Who will bring me down to the ground?"

Deception is pride in our hearts. It isn't an external force but an internal one. We can't say, "The devil made me do it." It is our condition-our choice. And even after God opens our eyes and ears, we are constantly warned not to be deceived. It lurks within us.

Rationalizing has nothing to do with it

If people have been deceived, then we cannot rationalize between heaven and hell, we cannot make a clear decision. We cannot rationally choose simply because of ourselves.

[HarleyD]

It’s called “choice”, what some would call “free will”, others would call “permissive will”. It seems to be something that Calvinists deny.

Rom 9:22-24 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

....

Luk_8:10 he said, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God, but for others they are in parables, so that 'seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand.'

....

1Co_1:27 But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong;

With good reasons.

[HarleyD]

Thank you for your post bb and plugging for another FR's book. I couldn't remember if you were the co-author with AG but I thought your were.

I would suggest a careful study of your point below:

(5) The only way God can't "get through to you" is if "you don't let Him."

That is the heart of the problem. This is the Pelagius error. "Us" giving and turning our lives to God. We are unable to open our eyes and ears to spiritual things. What I believe you meant to state is that God opens everyone's ears and eyes and then we make a choice to let Him in. This is the Catholics view of salvation. But then there are issues with that.

[HarleyD]

Just to follow up for stf, the reason the Catholic position is incorrect is due to the definition of “free will”. According to the dictionary, it says that “free will” is free from any influence including divine will. That means God could not open up eyes and ears nor have any causal relationship to the act of salvation. Which is exactly why the Council of Orange branded it heresy and Augustine burned his books. This subtle distinction was lost on the Council of Trent. They really should have listened to the Protestants of the time.

[CynicalBear]

One thing I don’t understand. With the belief in double predestination why would Calvinists debate anyone? They are “just along for the ride” and believe that everybody else is also. Isn’t it rather a waste of a Calvinists time to even be involved in any debate? After all, there is nothing anyone is going to be able to do about their destiny anyway.

[CynicalBear]

I would just like to remind everyone that Uri’el-2012 is having heart surgery today and to keep him in your prayers.

[Iscool]

Thanks for the reminder...

[metmom]

Thanks for the reminder. Lifting him up.

[P-Marlowe]

I find it somewhat ironic that the people who walk down the aisles singing “I surrender all” are so unwilling to surrender their free will. The semi-Pelagian clings to their free will as if their salvation is dependent on it; that somehow that free will is the deciding factor in their eternal destiny; that it is their free will that is their ticket to Heaven.

As if the exercise of their Free Will is as necessary to their Salvation as the Blood of Christ.

[HarleyD]

One thing I don’t understand. With the belief in double predestination why would Calvinists debate anyone?

I believe somewhere back PM stated that he didn't believe any Reformers on this board believed in double predestination. I agree. God doesn't consign anyone to hell. They do it themselves freely and willingly. They've chose to go there. Wouldn't you agree?

Isn’t it rather a waste of a Calvinists time to even be involved in any debate?

On the contrary. God commands us to preach the gospel. We follow orders to do so in obedience to His word. Where the Spirit leads is up to Him. Besides, our loving God gives us blessings in being obedient. For example, I find great benefits in understanding how to control my blood pressure. ;O)

[metmom]

Straw men are so easy to knock down.

That definition of *free will* cannot exist. It’s useless to waste anyone’s time claiming that they hold it and then arguing against it and calling them heretics for believing it. Worse yet, it’s disingenuous. To be perfectly honest, I don’t recall reading ANYWHERE that the Catholic church holds to THAT definition of *free will* that you are holding to.

It’s not either/or. It’s not *Since free will by that definition cannot exist, I have to be right;
therefore the double dipped *God controls everything and decides who’s going to be saved and who’s not* position is the only alternative and therefore has to be true*.

That is not a legitimate conclusion that can be reached using any kind of reasoning. Just because one position is wrong, does not mean there’s only one option left. There could be others.

CB has a good point. What the point of ragging on people about it? If you’re correct and everything is foreordained to happen, then we’re all just actors on a cosmic stage, acting out the roles predetermined for us to act out, not being responsible for what we believe or do. God is.

[metmom]

I find it somewhat ironic that the people who walk down the aisles singing “I surrender all” are so unwilling to surrender their free will.

How do you know they're unwilling to surrender their *free will*? Have you talked to them all and asked them? They told you?

Are you going by the unrealistic definition of free will that cannot exist that we keep being quoted?

[HarleyD]

I find it somewhat ironic that the people who walk down the aisles singing “I surrender all” are so unwilling to surrender their free will. ...As if the exercise of their Free Will is as necessary to their Salvation as the Blood of Christ.

And that, my friend, is PRECISELY why I'm constantly complaining about "free" will. Just look at how this one belief is so readily defended although it is used no where in scripture. Makes you wonder doesn't it? Trace any heresy no matter what it is and it comes back to the "I have a free will" thing.

The Christian life is one of total and complete surrender of our will to His asking Christ for the ability to make this happen. That is what abiding in Christ is all about.

Our spirit IS willing, but our flesh is weak. Pray that we don't enter into temptation. (Matt 26:41)

[HarleyD]

Are you going by the unrealistic definition of free will that cannot exist that we keep being quoted?

You keep harping on this. I got the definition from the dictionary. Please provide a definition from a realiable source that you feel is more realistic.

[P-Marlowe]

How do you know they're unwilling to surrender their *free will*? Have you talked to them all and asked them? They told you?

They post on the forum about how important their own Free Will was in their decision to choose Christ. The refuse to acknowledge that their salvation was entirely a work of God. They want to think that it was their own free will decision which brought them to the foot of the cross and that somehow they were smart enough or good enough in their own nature to gain salvation by their own volitional action.

Those are the people who stubbornly cling to their free will while claiming that through the exercise of their own free will they have surrendered all.

[xzins]

First, not all Calvinists are double predestinarian. I believe it depends on when they think the decree of God was made.

Some, of course, believe that God did not have to predestine to hell if He only predestined the elect to heaven. That would make logical sense. If you don’t specifically appoint someone to heaven, then they are logically going to hell, but not because they were specifically appointed to it.

Any Christian prays, proclaims, follows because God has instructed it. We don’t know how it factors in. The Calvinist knows that his bible says the same as others: “there fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.”

Therefore, he prays. He doesn’t pretend to have such great insight into what God can and can’t do that he disregards God’s own instruction.

[HarleyD]

To be perfectly honest, I don’t recall reading ANYWHERE that the Catholic church holds to THAT definition of *free will* that you are holding to.

Do you believe people free choose to go to hell? For all those who don't believe that is what you're saying. They can either choose Christ or not. So, according to what you're stating, people choose to go to hell.

CB has a good point. What the point of ragging on people about it?

Perhaps you didn't get to my most excellent response-especially about the blood pressure.

[HossB86]

Thanks CB; will do!

Hoss

[HarleyD]

First, not all Calvinists are double predestinarian. I believe it depends on when they think the decree of God was made.

That's correct. There is an order of decrees and it depends on the timing of these decrees. At one time I tried to study this but it really gets into some very deep scriptures. I felt there was a danger of perhaps reading something into scripture that wasn't there. It's almost like eschatology. Some people are very firm in saying they understand it. I don't think anyone really does.

But branding every Reformer as believing in double predestination is wrong. Most great Reformers such as John McArthur, John Piper or even old time preachers and teachers such as Charles Spurgeon or Matthew Henry clearly don't.