| 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 ...
So did He not really mean that? Did He mean that but forgot to call them? If God’s wills that all men be saved and then, per the Calvinist, all who He calls will follow which is it?"
Perhaps I should have pinged you to my response to another poster regarding this oft-quoted passage. To wit...
"This is the passage I said I would get back to. If you actually care about how this passage fits, I commend to you Brian Schwertley's excellent article on Sovereign Grace. The abbreviated version of that discussion (and I do mean abbreviated) is as follows:
The text in ITim favors the use of "all kinds" as the translation of the Greek "pas" (root) from a number of vantage points. First, this word is also in vs. 1 where Paul encourages prayers to be made for "all" men. He cannot mean "all" as in every single man who existed, who was in existence at the time, or would exist. But, that would be "all" men if you want to stretch it. Would you understand us then to be called to pray for the millions of men/women who are now in hell? Should we pray for the men/women who are now in heaven? Should we pray for Hitler, Nero, Stalin, Mao? But, they are in the "all" as you see it.
As Schwertley points out, Paul is telling Timothy to encourage believers to pray for all kinds of folks, even the kings and those in authority, because God desires all kinds of people to be saved, even some of them. That is God's will and it was & is being executed exactly this way.
Secondly, Translators have used "all kinds" or "all manner of" for this same word elsewhere. As in Mt. 4:23; 5:11; 10:1; Lk. 11:42; Acts 10:12, etc. where the same root word (with appropriate modifications - pan, panta, pasan) is translated "all kinds" or "all manner of". If they would have been consistent, then it would not have struck you that Paul was odd to argue that God wants every man saved, but at the same time argue He fashioned some for destruction (Rom. 9)."
Does that help with the Timothy verse? That is, we are not saying that God wants all saved, and cannot get there. We are saying that the passage does not teach what you have concluded.
And, if you check the contexts of the "alls" in your other cites, you will find Paul is referring to all believers, or all other believers.
But, I am curious about your response to my question. Do you see there being 3 groups or not? If not, how do you understand God needing to help a person believe, but some resisting. Is He helping everyone, but some resist?
Please see post 252 where I state that "all men" must refer to "all [ELECTED] men" because we know "all" [EVERY] men are not saved. This is exactly what I stated in post 108
Why not?
Would you understand us then to be called to pray for the millions of men/women who are now in hell?
Of course not. Don't go getting Catholic on us. That is also reading more into it than the passage states.
Should we pray for Hitler, Nero, Stalin, Mao? But, they are in the "all" as you see it.
Why not? Nero was emperor when Paul wrote this. He did not make any exceptions. Who know but when some political leader can come to know Christ. Nebuchadnezzar did.
Romans 13:1-7 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.
5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.
1 Timothy 2:1-4 First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, 2 for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. 3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
But if everything is already predestined to happen, why bother praying at all? Why bother sharing? God will save who He wants anyway. Nothing I can do can make a difference. I don't have any choice in the matter, right?
Fatalism does define Calvinism. It shines through whether you guys intend it or not.
Sorry, I think I omitted a response to this passage. Please read the entire context of I Tim. This passage does not just lay out there in the middle of nowhere. Paul is explaining to Tim. that all over the world, wherever he is traveling to help the gathered groups stay pointed in the right direction, that irrespective of what nation/city he is in, Jesus is the Savior. It is true anywhere in the world. And, that salvation will inure to the believers.
You see, someone could argue, well CynicalBear, you are not taking this literally enough because the passage actually teaches, "Jesus has saved everyone, because He is the Savior of all men and I just take God at His word". I think you would agree that taken this far is not good hermeneutics.
These kind of phrases can be taken beyond their intention everywhere and with every topic. For example,:
ITim 4:4, "For everything created by God is good and nothing to be rejected..." Oh, really? Not even Satan?
A person is compelled to deal with the entire picture of the Scriptures, to include such passages as John 6 (quoted by HarleyD), that, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day." Either this is teaching universal salvation (since every one drawn is "raised up"), or just those who are drawn are raised up. Here, HarleyD, is saying is the "irresistable grace" the elect need. If you get drawn, you get raised.
Adam could never understood the meaning of grace, mercy, love, joy, contentment, justice (etc.) as long as he was in the garden.
God created man in His image for fellowship with Him.
This is what we are taught and have heard. It's wrong. God created us for His glory.
Mat_5:16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.
The God portrayed by Calvinism is too much like the God portrayed by Catholicism - harsh, unloving, condemning, capricious.
See response above.
It's both. The Bible tells us there are two callings.
Then there is the "inward calling". This is the calling when God comes up to you, taps you on the shoulder and says, "Come, follow me." MAN CANNOT RESIST this inward calling.
Fatalism does define Calvinism. It shines through whether you guys intend it or not."
Ouch! I'm not a "calvinist", but I must be hitting the "anti-Calvinist" nerve. You still have not helped me understand your groupings of mankind...two, three, other?
Now, will I ever see a response to my question about the reason God created hell if He knew men would make poor choices to go there? I'd love to here an Arminian response to this. I can't find one on their website. I have been waiting a lot longer.
I suspect that will not be a problem. Just ask all of the RCs around here.
Funny how those verses were not address to me yet it's implied that you're not getting any answers. I believe I've been more than generous with my scripture explanations. In fact, in one of my post you said you were not going to spend your time reading the information provided (the Westminster Confession). So please don't tell me that you never get any answers.
I have yet to have anyone explain to me the purpose of a loving God casting people into the flaming fires of hell.
Clearly it was predestined by God to go back to Dutchboy's compliment. :O)
Sure you have.
Hell was created for the devil and his angels.
Now maybe your question should really be, *Why did God create man if He knew that man would make poor choices and end up there?*
And maybe the Calvinists could also explain why God created man in the first place if it was His plan to send most of them there? Doesn't that then mean that hell was created for not only the devil and his angels but men also? Did God neglect to tell us that?
Are you saying that God changed His mind about the purpose of hell? That He planned to cast ONLY the devil and his angels in there and later decided to cast the wicked?
And maybe the Calvinists could also explain ...
I believe I have been very clear, more than fair, and have posted many references. I have answered all of these questions several times. If you truly would like answers to these questions I would suggest monergism.com which contains a wealth of teaching.
In looking back you and CB have stated indirectly:
2) God is not omniscience. God does not know whether a man will come to Christ or not. Someone who has not yet been born has not yet made their choice. [Note: there was the time corridor discussion but although God can look down through time, He can't do anything to stop it.]
3) The conversions of Abraham, Moses, Samuel, Paul and others are anomalies throughout history. These are special times when God had to step in to do something-anything-to get things moving.
4) God states that His desire is that all men be saved. According to your view "all men" means exactly that-all men. Yet we know from evidence around us that all men are not saved. Since you don't believe in universalism, the desires of God are not satisfied.
5) Hell is a punishment reserved for the angels. It was an after thought to cast disobedient men into the eternal flames of hell.
6) Some of Christ's teachings like, "You did not choose me but I chose you." are meant strictly for the disciples. Others are for all of us. The scriptures are unclear as to which is which.
You aren't accusing me of stating anything like that, are you?
I've only posited a few questions. Like you, I am still waiting for someone to posit some answers. :-)
I didn’t include your name did I?
If you are referring to post 216 and 181 and 176, I believe I answered this in post 223.
And, like you, I’m still waiting for an answer to post 174. ;O)
Oh my. Contrast these statements with something that marron said in an earlier post:
My belief is that “creation” is a fundamental element in God's essence, like love, it is in part who he is. Furthermore that, since we are made in his image, it is a fundamental part of who we are. And to push my line of reasoning a bit further, that it is an important part of why he created us; first, because thats what he does, but more as a way of furthering the process of creation. We are tools who are intended to join in creation.IMHO FWIW, it seems to me that HarleyD's statement has a certain presupposition built into it; that is, the universe (God's Creation) is essentially mechanistic and thoroughly causally determined from the get-go.
Its important to notice that parts of the process are mechanical, and are predictable, and parts of it have been given independent intellect and will which adds an element of spontaneity to the process. This seems to be by design. Rather than a universe of telephone poles he seems to prefer forests of unique trees whose final shape is not entirely predictable or controlled.
He can work with that kind of uncertainty the way a sailor uses winds he doesn't control to go to a destination he does control. He doesn't need to control everything to remain in control of everything.
Yet seems to me it is not possible to speak of "predestination" without reference to this background presupposition.
Marron, however, elucidates an aspect of the universe that is absolutely irreducible to terms of deterministic causation and mechanistic explanation. That is, he points to the elements of independent intellect and will as the sources of spontaneity, of diversity, of all "newness" in the world of creation. I'd suggest this is the sphere of free will, which enables us imago Deis to be co-creators with Him, as I believe was His Intention from the first. Satan blew it. Adam blew it. Christ came to give us a second chance, to redeem us, to introduce into the world of creation the Holy Spirit which alone can lift us up from our gross animal natures....
Dear brother in Christ, I do not believe it is true that "man can't make the right choices. But this is the way it has been designed."
God, in the Beginning, was not making watches. He was making sons of God.
Not all men become so. But they always have/had the chance, if they will turn their hearts to God.
God knows from the Beginning who will and will not do this; ultimately they will be judged accordingly. But it seems to me this doesn't "predestine" any soul to failure. It only means that an omniscient, omnipresent God — from the POV of His Eternal NOW — knows all outcomes from the Beginning.
And of course, we humans don't.
Well just some thoughts, dear HarleyD, FWTW. (I hope I haven't been "putting words into your mouth.") Thank you so very much for your essay/post, and your other excellent contributions on this thread!
No, that showed me the same double speak as we get from Catholics.
1 Timothy 2:4 Who will have all (pantas) men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. pantas - Definition: all, the whole, every kind of.
pas: all, every
>> The text in 1 Tim favors the use of "all kinds"<<
NO, not “all kinds” but “every kind”. There’s a difference. A hint in there would be “the whole”. Trying to play word games to fit scripture into a pr-determined belief doesn’t work well.
>> As Schwertley points out, Paul is telling Timothy to encourage believers to pray for all kinds of folks,<<
There are 90 occurrences of “pantas or a version of it in scripture and not once has it been or could it be translated or thought to mean “all kinds”. I would put Schwertley into a category of “search the scriptures daily to see if these things be true” and will probably find that he, like this example, is desperately trying to make scripture fit a pre-determined belief.
>>Secondly, Translators have used "all kinds" or "all manner of" for this same word elsewhere.<<
Well, let’s look and see what your examples show/
Matthew 4:23 Pasan which can mean every manner of but it’s not pantas as was used int 1 Timothy is it. Different form of the word = different meaning.
Matthew 5:11 Pan is used there, again not pantas. Different form of the word = different meaning.
Matthew 10:1 Pasan again used there, again not pantas. There seems to be a trend here.
Luke 11:42 Pan is used, again not pantas. Are you starting to get the picture?
>>Would you understand us then to be called to pray for the millions of men/women who are now in hell? Should we pray for the men/women who are now in heaven? Should we pray for Hitler, Nero, Stalin, Mao?<<
Say you didn’t go there. Please say you didn’t go there. You did go there. I’m beginning to get a picture here and I don’t like it.
>>But, they are in the "all" as you see it.<
Now your telling me how I see it? Really? It couldn’t just be your prejudiced view could it? Don’t ever tell me how I see things or what I think again. K?
Only if you’re trying to fit scripture into a pre-determined belief. I take scripture for what it says. Not what I think it “must” say to fit my belief.
We’ve been here before! I’m sensing a trend here. Desperately trying to fit scripture into a pre-determined belief.
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.