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]

This gets really old but here goes.

Enoch 1:1 Implies restoration during tribulation - not congruent with scriptures.
Enoch 1:8 In conflict with the doctrine that peace was made at the cross.
Enoch 2:2-3 Contradicts 2 Pet 3:3-7
Enoch 6:3 Semjaza is listed as the leader of the angels, which is not scriptural

There are more than 30 others. Need I go on?

[CynicalBear]

>> How do you know you aren't leading some of them astray.<<

I point them to scripture not to doctrines developed thousands of years later.

>> Wouldn't it be better if the lurkers were able to see your statement of faith, compare it to scripture,<<

I have no “statements of faith” other than scripture.

>> In essence, by insisting that your interpretation of scripture is correct because YOU only base your beliefs on scripture that you are, in fact making doctrine for all who read your posts.<<

So you’re saying that holding to scripture as my only doctrine is me making doctrine? Say what?

>> In other words, your denomination is the Church of Cynical Bear, and YOU are the final authority since it is your interpretation that is the Truth and anyone disputing that doctrine is espousing false doctrine.<<

Dispute the scripture? Dispute the scripture? Really?

[P-Marlowe]

Dispute the scripture? Dispute the scripture? Really?

No, dispute YOUR interpretation of scripture. Unless you are infallible, your interpretation of scripture is not TRUTH. It is your opinion.

Do you claim to be infallible in your interpretation of any and all verses in the Bible? Or do you think that there are some ideas you may have developed about certain verses which just might be..... (gasp).... wrong?

Take heed lest you fall.

[CynicalBear]

>>Do you claim to be infallible in your interpretation of any and all verses in the Bible?<<

I don’t interpret scripture. I let scripture interpret scripture. You will not see an interpretation by me other than scripture that discounts or clarifies something that has been posted.

[P-Marlowe]

I don’t interpret scripture.

I think you are being disingenuous. Obviously if you get any meaning at all out of any scripture you are engaged in interpreting it.

Thanks for the discussion. It has been..... enlightening.

After a thousand post I can't tell if you are a Trinitarian or a modalist, an Arminian or a Pelagian, a Word of Faith or a Church of God follower, a Campbellite or a Unitarian. If your purpose here was to sew confusion and advocate for doctrinal anarchy, then you've succeeded. If your purpose was to sew harmony and enlighten the lurkers and edify the body of Christ, then I think you didn't quite achieve your goals.

But I've been wrong before.

I'm out of here.

[CynicalBear]

My purpose was and is to point to Christ and His word rather than all those other “denominations” which try to insert themselves in between us and Christ. God’s word is the source of all truth and the only infallible source.

[P-Marlowe]

My purpose was and is to point to Christ and His word

You're not the first.

Adios Muchacho.

[boatbums]

If it is the faith of God (which by definition would necessarily be a perfect, unwavering, complete and total faith) then I think that once you have that, you can never stray from the faith and your eternal destiny is sealed forever.

According to Scripture, our eternal destiny IS sealed forever by faith. So, if that means we have been given the faith of Christ when we believe in Him, we ARE sealed with the Holy Spirit until the day of redemption and we are forever HIS. I think far too much is being made of the words "in" and "of". If you looked at an online parallel Bible at Galatians 2:20, it's about 50/50 for "faith OF Christ" and "faith IN Christ". Of course, the translators often use words in English that best impart the original languages' meanings and in order to do that they add extra words. The KJV designates added words by using italics, and it is understood that it means the word was "added by the translators". This ongoing nattering over the right word seems to have lost the point.

If people such as Copeland deduce they are "little gods" because they have the "faith of God", then that is their own peculiar interpretation, outside of Scripture. We certainly have other Scriptures that adequately disprove such an UN-orthodox belief. And that really IS the special quality of believing the Bible is our rule of faith. Accepting sola Scriptura essentially means that all truth claims for the Christian faith must be measured BY Scripture. It does NOT mean that there are no other resources available to a Christian who seeks to understand his faith - including those gifted to the church in the forms of teachers, pastors, etc. Believing in the sufficiency of God's word places these people as subordinate to the scriptures and not the other way around as some religions do.

[P-Marlowe]

See post 1005.

[mitch5501]

"Interesting the things you find out when you start to explore “free will”, isn’t it? Just saying..."

It sure is HD.

"..denial of the Trinity.."

Who did that? because if that's one of the interesting things you find out then it's no wonder this thread has gone the way it's gone.

The flesh is glorying in much of this thread...just saying

[boatbums]

According to my Strong dictionary, the Greek word that you used are two seperate words. 2 Cor 8:3 is authairetos which means voluntary. Strong does not relate this word to "free will". Only voluntary. Your second example in Philemon 1:14 is hekousion, a neuter of a derivative from G1635; voluntariness: - willingly. Please note that in neither of these cases is it used in terms of salvation.

I mentioned that there were two different Greek words that were translated as "free will". And, yes, Strong's DOES relate the word to free will:

authairetos

adjective
1) voluntary, of free choice, of one's own accord http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G830&t=KJV

Thayer's Lexicon help says:

self-chosen, esp of states or conditions. More rarely of persons; voluntary, of free choice, of one's own accord.

That they are not used in terms of salvation, is beside the point as the discussion has been about there being any free will by man. I wanted to respond to the false, in my view, assertion that "nowhere in the Bible is free will mentioned" and to counter the disparagement, again in my view, of those who hold to the doctrine of sola Scriptura. We have already seen comments on this thread that mock SS and who point to the disagreements going on here between non-Catholics to demonstrate its failure. I don't agree with them that SS is to blame for conflicting doctrines among Christians.

How I define salvation is no different than what the Bible says - it is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ and not by works. I have no desire to argue predestination versus free will as I have already noted I believe the truth is in the realm that our present finite minds can only get a glimpse. I know that without faith it is impossible to please God and he that comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him (Heb. 11:6).

I hope you have a blessed day.

[boatbums]

I think the irritation is more because CB refused to slap one of y'alls labels on himself than because he wouldn't tell you what he believed. I cannot think of even one thing he has said over the years concerning the essential doctrines of the Christian faith that are at odds with what the Reformers taught and which I also believe. Sometimes people mistake resistance to stereotyping as adherence to some heresy or another. But, in the case of Cynical Bear and Metmom, I can vouch that they hold to ALL the tenets that make a Christian a Christian.

Seeing that this thread (d)evolved into a discussion over Calvinism and Armenianism - areas many Christians view as genuinely interesting but not rising to the level of essential salvific dogma - it is sad that fellow believers feel they must criticize and demean each other just because they disagree on the subject. God saw fit to leave certain areas hazy in Scripture. While on other essential topics, He leaves no room over which to quibble. Why He did this, we can only guess, but perhaps one reason is to teach us to love each other as Christ loves us - and He continues to even when we stray from His path. We can love and respect each other and still not agree on everything. On essentials - unity; non-essentials - liberty, on all things - charity.

[HarleyD]

Would you please show the post where someone denied the trinity?

Would you like me to post where someone won't admit to the Trinity? Same thing.

[HarleyD]

That’s easy. Sound doctrine is what scripture teaches.

So is the Westminster Confession sound doctrine? Way back somewhere on this thread you stated that it was too long to read.

[HarleyD]

Granted we are made righteous in Christ but I'm talking about the sanctification process. Personally, I find walking in Christ shoes (er, sandals) a very hard task. It is only through His grace that He picks me up on the many times that I stumble. And, trust me, this is not false modesty.

[HarleyD]

OK, so what does Scripture tell us is sound doctrine? Could you provide a chapter and verse for what Scripture says sound doctrine consists of?

Well, Hebrews 6 states the following:

Heb 6:1-2 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

We know that the simple doctrines are:

1) repentance from dead works

2) faith toward God

3) baptisms

4) laying on of hands

5) resurrection of the dead

6) eternal judgment

Please note that #3 is baptisms which I believe xzins asked some questions about. Since these are all foundational doctrines, they should be easy enough to explain. And, quite frankly, they don't look too difficult.

Isa 28:9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.

Mat_16:12 Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

Mar_1:22 And they were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes.

Joh_7:16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.

There are at least 50 verses that mentions "good and bad" doctrine in scriptures-both in the Old and New Testaments. God teaches us doctrine through His word but not everyone is taught it. It is a learning process in our sanctification process. Our understanding of doctrine is based on reading the word of God, praying for understanding, humbling ourselves to His divine word, listening to the (good and bad) teachings of others, and being darned sure we know what we're talking about.

And, contrary to what people may think about the love of God, God is very concerned that we preach sound doctrine. He does not like it when we say things that are not true about Him.

[CynicalBear]

So you think he was the first? How about John the Baptist? Or maybe even long before that? How about Paul when writing to the Corinthians.

1 Corinthians 2:2 For I determined not to know anything among you, except Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

Where does all the anger for those who choose not to identify with today’s denominations come from? Christ didn’t establish separate denominations or separate “bodies of Christ”. The apostles didn’t teach to follow one of them in one town and another one of them in a different town. Paul said it well in his letter to the Corinthians.

1 Corinthians 3: 3 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.

2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.

3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?

4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?

5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?

6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.

7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.

8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.

9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.

10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.

11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Division in the body of Christ is not from God. Identifying with one “denomination” or another isn’t what Christ or the apostles taught. Paul called that type of idea carnal and not spiritual.

The need to pigeonhole people into one denominational belief system or another is indeed carnal. And it’s not something new as can be seen in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians. What’s the point of demanding that believers identify with one denomination or another? To somehow understand what someone believes? That doesn’t work too well. In fact it’s rather dangerous. Especially as the end times draw nearer. I can go through each denomination and find beliefs that conflict with scripture. The idea of identifying with different denominations would be one of them as we can see in the example of the Corinthians.

Do all Calvinists believe that homosexual orientation is not a sin as stated in the “FAQs about Calvin College, LGBT Students and Homosexuality.”? I would hope not. Do all Lutherans believe that homosexuals can be ordained as ministers? Again, I would hope not. How about Methodists? Do all Methodists believe that homosexuals should be included in participation of the sacraments and programs? Those are just some examples of the error of pigeonholing.

No where in scripture is there teaching of the separation of believers into different denominations, sects, or belief systems. The body of Christ is universal and acceptance of Jesus as Lord and Savior is how someone becomes part of the body of Christ or the “church”. Membership in a denomination or organization doesn’t do that. Identifying oneself as a Methodist, Calvinist, Catholic, or any other affiliation isn’t an indication of being saved nor is it necessarily an indication of ones beliefs. It is however an indication of a carnal mind as seen in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians.

Are you followers of Calvin, Luther, the Pope, Wesley, or some other “teacher”? Or are you followers of Christ? Do you hold the writings of men as God’s word or scripture which was truly inspired by the Holy Spirit?

Are you carnally minded or Spiritually minded?

[CynicalBear]

>> Would you like me to post where someone won't admit to the Trinity? Same thing.<<

Please do. I know of no one who has posted to this thread that has denied believing in the trinity. In fact most all that I know of have posted scripture showing proof of the trinity.

[CynicalBear]

>>So is the Westminster Confession sound doctrine?<<

I don’t know nor do I care. My beliefs aren’t based on the Westminster Confession. They are based on scripture. If someone believes they must “confess” the Westminster Confession, or any other “confession”, that’s their choice. My salvation is not base on whether I confess anything other than a belief and reliance on the Lord Jesus Christ and Him crucified. It’s His blood that covers me not some denominational statement.

[CynicalBear]

>>There are at least 50 verses that mentions "good and bad" doctrine in scriptures-both in the Old and New Testaments.<<

Tell me. Which ones are needed for salvation?