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...

[metmom]

God is not omnipotent. Man is capable of resisting God, at least in the area of salvation.

Sure God's omnipotent.

What demands that He use that to force everything to conform to His will?

Just because someone has the ability to do something does not demand that he must.

What if God decided to leave the choice for salvation to man? IOW, it was His will to let man choose? After all, He commands us to, as in Deuteronomy 30.

He draws, no doubt about that. Man is not capable of coming to God without it.

But that does not mean that God chooses to force the decision, but rather could leave the choice up to the individual.

The other option is that God is a harsh, unloving, unjust God who holds men accountable and punishes them, for something they have no control over.

[metmom]

After all, only Calvinists are wrong and legalistic in their views. And we're very nasty, disagreeable people.

I've listened to sermons and teaching by Reformed preachers and that is a fairly accurate portrayal of how they come across. Very severe, austere, dogmatic, judgmental, uncompassionate, prideful cause they're the elect,.....

I feel sorry for those on the way to hell. It's not like *Oh well, they deserved it. It's what they were predestined for anyway. Too bad they weren't the elect like me/us.*

It just oozes spiritual pride.

I've been in an OPC church and found it very cold and aloof and the same for the people I worked with who attended there. The one guy was reputed to be a Christian but he NEVER talked about it and NEVER shared Christ with ANYONE. He wasn't a bad guy, but hardly ever smiled. He was downright grim. Nothing about him would give anyone any indication he had a relationship with Christ.

The other guy was much friendlier and people could at least see a difference in him. He even smiled.

[P-Marlowe]

I’m not following you here

I'm not following cynical. He seems to think that God is bad because he created Hell.

Maybe I misunderstood his post, but that seems to be what he is saying. Cynical doesn't seem to believe that a loving God would send anyone to Hell. He can correct me if I am wrong.

[metmom]

I don’t think he was actually saying that as much as perhaps, hyperbole, if I used the term correctly.

Either way, I’ll check in tomorrow (which is almost here) for the reply.

Night.....

[betty boop]

So God just put this whole world together to just use man in such a dastardly way as to plan to create him knowing that it was just to send some of them to eternal torment in a plan to bring glory to Him! Wow! I just can’t get over that statement.

Jeepers, this sort of thing kinda reminds me of the attitude of the Olympian gods towards mankind (who these gods did not create, for the Olympian gods were "only" creatures themselves): Human beings are just so many pawns to be moved gratuitously around the cosmic chessboard to the gods' eternal vainglory, so to defeat this or that "fellow god" because one god or goddess doesn't like the human company that his or her fellow god or goddess is hanging out with.

If all that sounds like complete tripe, I invite you to read Homer's Iliad. I consider this work the single most blood-thirsty literary excursion in the history of mankind. And boil it all down, it says that human beings are but "playthings" of "the gods." Who, though comprising a so-called "divine" family, all detest and/or are "jealous" of each other, seeking eternal revenge by mercilessly using "human tools" — like Agamemnon, Priam, Achilles, Patroclus, Hector, Paris, Helen, Ulysses, et al. — to get the job of settling intra-familiar scores done. At enormous human cost in blood and treasure and even human civilization itself every time.

If this observation seems like a non-sequitur, then for heaven's sake, would somebody please explain to me how this "primitive" vision of god–man relations differs one iota from a theology that holds: "Predestination says that since God planned it, Adam was ordained to fall according to God's plan"?

This sort of thing (it seems to me) means/makes man God's "plaything," just as the Olympian gods regarded man their "plaything," to be squandered gratuitously, at will, to satisfy the insatiable demands of their their own vanity, their unlimited narcissism.

Finally, it seems to me that HarveyD's late objections to my recent writings profoundly bear on questions, not only about the character of man, but also about the character of God Himself.

Guess I better put a sock in it for now.

Thank you ever so much, dear CynicalBear, for your outstanding observations!!!

[daniel1212]

The way i see it, God

draws souls (Jn. 6:44; 12:32 [all[)

convicts souls, (Jn. 16:9)

opens hearts (Acts 16:14)

grants repentance (Acts 11:8)

gives faith (Eph. 2:8)

is not willing that any should perish (2 Pt. 3:9)

calls all to repent (Acts 17:32)

wept over lost souls He longed to gather, bemoaning their soon destruction (Lk. 13:34,35; 19:41,42)

for souls can resist His call (Prov. 1:24ff)

but man is spiritually dead until regeneration (Eph. 2:1,5)

yet man can make moral choices and resist sin (Gn. 4:7)

and is responsible for not repenting (Mt. 11:21)

but God elected souls to salvation before they did good or evil (Rm. 9)

and saves souls ordained unto eternal life (Acts 13:48)

and those He called He will justify and glorify (Rm. 8:30)

and will continue works the good thing He began in believes until the day of Jesus Christ (Phil. 1:6)

yet warns believers against casting away their faith and departing from the living God, drawing back unto perdition, and making Christ of non effect, (Heb. 3:12; 10:38; Gal. 5:1-4) and denying the faith, (1Tim. 5:8)

but works to chastens souls unto repentance, lest they be condemned with the rest of the world (1Cor. 11:32)

and whose ways in predestination are past finding out (Rm. 11:33)

and it is well not to exercise myself in in things too high for me, but to be as a little child in trusting God (Ps. 131)

And on that note, because of a basic common faith in the Evangelical gospel that shuts man up as damned + destitute sinners who can only look to the mercy of God in Christ to save them by faith (though a faith that effects works thereof), two men who were sincerely held opposite views on predestination (both of whom would be grieved at the present declension) could esteem each other.

Spurgeon: Although upon doctrines of grace our views differ from those avowed by Arminian Methodists, we have usually found that on the great evangelical truths we are in full agreement, and we have been comforted by the belief that Wesleyans were solid upon the central doctrines. (Sword and the Trowel, May, 1891)

Most atrocious things have been spoken about the character and spiritual condition of John Wesley, the modern prince of Arminians. I can only say concerning him that, while I detest many of the doctrines which he preached, yet for the man himself I have a reverence second to no Wesleyan; and if there were wanted two apostles to be added to the number of the twelve, I do not believe that there could be found two men more fit to be so added than George Whitfield and John Wesley. (C. H. Spurgeon’s Autobiography, Vol. 1, p. 173, in “A Defence Of Calvinism,” The Banner Of Truth Trust edition)

Now I hate High Churchism as my soul hates Satan; but I love George Herbert, although George Herbert is a desperately High Churchman. I hate his high Churchism, but I love George Herbert from my very soul, and I have a warm corner in my heart for every man who is like him. Let me find a man who loves my Lord Jesus Christ as George Herbert did, and I do not ask myself whether I shall love him or not; there is no room for question, for I cannot help myself; unless I can leave off loving Jesus Christ, I cannot cease loving those who love him. (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 12, p. 6; http://www.spurgeongems.org/vols10-12/chs668.pdf)

Have a God night

[daniel1212]

Thanks for the ping, and I have not read any of this at all except what you sent, and will only say now that “just to bring glory to Him” can be much misunderstood, as if God is selfishly looking out for Himself, when in reality,

God needs nothing, (Acts 17:25),
and would have a lot less grief if man did not exist.

And what He requires of man is what is simply right and best for man, for to make created things (versus your Creator) your highest object of spiritual affection and chief source of security is wrong and will fail you.

And the command to love and follow Him is no more selfish than a mother is when she tells her youngster to hold her hand in the busy city.

And His “jealousy” may be (insufficiently) likened to a coach who plays to win, blasting requiring his players because they are devoting themselves to lesser things than the big game.

And Christ-likeness and eternity is the big game. Thus to “do all to the glory of God” (1Cor. 10:31) gains Him nothing He needs, but is right and just and is what is best for man.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for your splendid essay-post, dearest sister in Christ, and for contrasting the views!

Thank you all for sharing your insights!

Yet seems to me it is not possible to speak of "predestination" without reference to this background presupposition. [determinism]

Some scientists also hold to "strong determinism" believing that if they knew the initial conditions and rules, they would be able to predict whether you would order a hamburger or a taco for lunch.

But they are in the minority which might be a bit odd since so many of them hold to a Newtonian paradigm (mechanistic universe) and therefore avoid (amusingly so sometimes) any suggestion of a first or final cause, even such simple things as "function" in biological systems. This I suspect is to avoid any mention of God though some - even notorious atheist Dawkins - will allow for the possibility of space aliens. LOLOL!

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.

But despite His permissive will, I aver that no one can thwart His creative will. Pharoah tried at Moses' birth as did Herod when Jesus was born.

Evidently most of us have just minor parts to play in the whole of God's Creation, but He groomed some for particular tasks and commissioned them in a great display of power, e.g. Moses, Mary, Paul. Esther was given a choice and she chose wisely (Ester 4). Jonah needed some convincing (Jonah).

Nevertheless, I am certain that if any of them had said "no" that God's creative will would not have been thwarted:

And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to [our] father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. - Matt 3:9

marron's metaphor makes the point beautifully:

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.

God's Name is I AM.

[Lera]

All men seek God. God waits patiently for them


No man seeks God and God does NOT sit by and wait patiently , He actively works to draw man.


Psa 14:2 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
Psa 14:3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.



Joh 6:43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.
Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

[HarleyD]

So God just put this whole world together to just use man in such a dastardly way as to plan to create him knowing that it was just to send some of them to eternal torment in a plan to bring glory to Him! Wow! I just can’t get over that statement.... And you don’t see how sick and twisted that theology is?

Post 274:

In looking back you and CB have stated indirectly:

1) God is not omnipotent....

2) God is not omniscience. ...

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.

Well, that takes care of four out of six.

[HarleyD]

That’s one instance.

Inward calling (example 2):

Mat 4:18 While walking by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon (who is called Peter) and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea, for they were fishermen.

Mat 4:19 And he said to them, "Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men."

Mat 4:20 Immediately they left their nets and followed him.

Inward Calling (example 3)

Exo 3:1 Now Moses was keeping the flock of his father-in-law, Jethro, the priest of Midian, and he led his flock to the west side of the wilderness and came to Horeb, the mountain of God.

Exo 3:2 And the angel of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush. He looked, and behold, the bush was burning, yet it was not consumed.

Exo 3:3 And Moses said, "I will turn aside to see this great sight, why the bush is not burned."

Exo 3:4 When the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called to him out of the bush, "Moses, Moses!" And he said, "Here I am."

How many more do you need? I have several others.

[HarleyD]

The reformed position does not explain why God chose to create either man or hell if He planned on sending the majority of the human race there with no option for avoiding it.

Well, PM seems to get this. God created everything for His glory; man, hell, the rock in my front yard that I keep hitting with the lawn mower. Everything.

In the garden there was no contrast. God could tell Adam that the day he ate the fruit he would die. But what would that mean to Adam if he never saw anything dying? How could he understand the concept of death? Same way with love, joy, peace, justice, wrath, etc. What is love if you don't know the absence of love? The fall was necessary so that we could understand these contrasts. Without the law there is no grace.

BUT GOD... is perfect love. He's not going to consign people to an eternity of torment unless that is what they want. There are many who prefer their rebellion rather than submit to God. If people really wanted to avoid it, the churches would be packed. And don't kid yourself. We'd be just like them if it wasn't for God. All one has to do is ask themselves if they want to skip church and go to the beach?

Right now they're making their choice aren't they? They would rather be on the golf course than worshipping God. Do you think can change their minds? Do you think God can change their minds? And if you believe God CAN change their minds, why doesn't He?

[Diapason]

“I’ve listened to sermons and teaching by Reformed preachers and that is a fairly accurate portrayal of how they come across. Very severe, austere, dogmatic, judgmental, uncompassionate, PRIDEFUL ‘CAUSE THEY ARE THE ELECT,.....”

The elect are very well aware that there is no cause for pride.

Eph 2:8 by grace you have been saved through faith. And THIS IS NOT YOUR OWN DOING; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

[HarleyD]

Cynical doesn't seem to believe that a loving God would send anyone to Hell. He can correct me if I am wrong.

This is the typical problem that I've seen with many good, outstanding Protestants on this board. They are so wrapped around the free will axle that it takes them down paths that I don't believe they realize. In post 274 I mentioned the positions they were getting themselves into. I was yelled at. Personally, I don't believe that is what they meant to say. We get into time distortions, God's inabilities, weird doctrines on hell, etc.

It's all this "free will" gibberish. It drives me crazy. We are slaves to sin or slaves to righteousness. We do God's will or we do our will. And if we do God's will it's because He's leading us to do it-not that we're doing it on our own "free will". We're slaves after all and that's a good thing to God's credit and glory. It's that simple. Stray off this path and it takes you to places you don't really want to go.

It isn't a will issue. It's a power issue. I don't need my will to be free. I need the power to act upon God's will by following His commandments. Wretched man that I am.

[HarleyD]

It is not our position to judge another's understanding of the truth. Rather it is our responsibility to point out doctrinal errors. But how far does one go before doctrinal error become heresy or even blasphamy? That is the problem. Paul was far less harsh on the Corithians than he was on the Galatians. Our Reformers fathers were aghast at Rome. Today we see Protestants wanting to partner and merge with Roman Catholics. Is Mary as Co-Redeptix no more different than modes of baptism?

The bottom line is that we need to understand the truth and then speak it regardless of where it takes us. If we don't understand, then it's best to say nothing.

[CynicalBear]

CB : Calvinists can’t think of any way that an omniscient, omnipresent, infallible God could create a system that would bring glory to Him without the eternal torment of the creatures He created?

PM : Here's your problem, cyn.

PM: He did.

He did what?

>> Do you deny the existence of Hell?<<

The existence of hell is clearly taught in scripture. Why would anyone deny its existence. Which brings up a rather interesting point. Why would you ask me that question when I have clearly stated in my postings that I do believe in its existence and have never indicated otherwise?

You seem to like to ask questions but I don’t seem to find any real substance to any of your posts that add to the discussion. How about showing scripture that shows your position on the subject being discussed.

For instance. If you believe that God intentionally created man to be a sinner in some scheme to bring honor and glory to Him show the scripture that proves that and not that He simply gave Adam a choice.

[CynicalBear]

>> The reformed position does not explain why God chose to create either man or hell if He planned on sending the majority of the human race there with no option for avoiding it.<<

It would seem that their position is that God created man in such a way that he was incapable of not sinning nor did he really have a choice to obey when God told Adam to not eat of the tree. So that would mean that God told Adam not to eat of the tree but had actually designed him in such a way that to obey God was in impossibility.

It seems it’s also there position that rather than creating hell as a consequence of Lucifer rebelling that God created hell to eternally torment people who had no option of obeying Him in the first place. So in their mind God created man and hell to intentionally torment them for eternity in some bizarre scheme that they think brings glory to God.

I wonder if they raise puppies just to torture them just short of death and somehow think that brings glory to them?

[CynicalBear]

>>I'm not following cynical.<<

LOL Ya don’t say!

>>He seems to think that God is bad because he created Hell.<<

God created hell to punish Lucifer and the angels that rebelled with him. He then created Adam who had a choice to obey God but chose to listen to Lucifer instead of obeying God. Being a just God the same punishment given to Lucifer was given to Adam for rebelling against God. But being a loving God He also gave Adam a second chance albeit with a different set of circumstances.

>>Cynical doesn't seem to believe that a loving God would send anyone to Hell.<<

It would be interesting for you to show from what I posted where you got that impression. Just we could all see how you interpret things so we can word our posts accordingly.

>>He can correct me if I am wrong.<<

Why would I want to correct you? You are allowed to believe anything you want. Lot’s of people have bizarre beliefs that have no base in reality. It’s their free will choice to have those beliefs even if they have no basis in fact.

[CynicalBear]

You hit the nail on the head with that one! I’ve been trying to put my finger on where the attitude they seem to have about “predestination” comes from and you are exactly right.

[CynicalBear]

Once again, well put daniel1212!