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 still haven’t shown where we said those things.

[CynicalBear]

I fail to see how hat proves that all those who are called have no option but to respond in an affirmative way. Would you say that all those who Jesus preached to and even some who followed Him for some time who turned away were not called by Jesus?

[CynicalBear]

>> He's not going to consign people to an eternity of torment unless that is what they want.<<

Wait. Wait, Wait. They want? I thought they didn’t have a choice?

>> Right now they're making their choice aren't they?<<

Say what? How can they be “making their choice” if they have no choice to make? Are you listening to yourself?

>> Do you think God can change their minds? And if you believe God CAN change their minds, why doesn't He?<<

Surely it can’t be because God has given them a choice could it?

[metmom]

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.

Heck, as a mom I can tell if my kids would prefer a hamburger or taco for lunch. But it doesn't mean I made them pick it.

[metmom]

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

THANK YOU!!!!!

[metmom]

I know that’s what they say.

It doesn’t stop how they come across.

[Bainbridge]

And your tone and attitude are Christlike?

[daniel1212]

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.

This is true, and while Spurgeon loved those who also loved his Lord, he was clearly apposed to papism and "the POPISH MASS" as well as Romish Anglicanism .

But i see a needless DEGREE of division among those who both preach justification by faith, not by works, over interpretive conclusions regarding predestination , in which both both sides can present a strong case, while the main things is to treat souls as seen in Scripture, that of being accountable for their sins and to repent, even though they can only do so if God grants repentance and faith, and even if certain distinctions are made btwn different meanings of "will," "grace," "all," "whole," and "any," etc.

And it should be noted that sometimes fierce debate regarding debate predestination has also been part of Rome's history , and which simply resulted in a truce.

[P-Marlowe]

So what you seem to be implying is that at some point before creating man, God created Hell, but in His slightly less than infinite foreknowledge he didn’t know at the time that someday He would be sending many of Adam’s descendants to the place He created only for Lucifer and his angels.

IOW God didn’t know at the time that He created man that Adam was going to rebel and that God would ultimately have to send men there as well.

Have I got it right?

[Alamo-Girl]

Heck, as a mom I can tell if my kids would prefer a hamburger or taco for lunch. But it doesn't mean I made them pick it.

Indeed. Thank you for sharing that insight, dear sister in Christ!

[Alamo-Girl]

You're quite welcome, dear sister in Christ!

[P-Marlowe]

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.

It's called the Socratic Method. By asking question you force the person who is positing a philosophical position to think it through and clarify what they are postulating.

How about showing scripture that shows your position on the subject being discussed.

I don't believe I have taken any specific position on this thread. I am simply challenging those who, like you, have taken a position. You will note that I am an equal opportunity challenger. HarleyD can attest to that. :-)

Carry on.

[CynicalBear]

>>Have I got it right?<<

Obviously not.

[CynicalBear]

>>I don't believe I have taken any specific position on this thread.<<

Oh ya think?

>>I am simply challenging those who, like you, have taken a position.<<

You may think that cute but I find it rather disingenuous and not worthy of discourse.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!

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.

Truly, we are created for God's pleasure:

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. - Rev 4:11

God's words tell us we are adopted into His family:

For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with [him], that we may be also glorified together. - Romans 8:15-17

And again,

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. - John 1:12-13

So that adoption must be pleasing to God.

But some may say that God takes pleasure in sending some men to suffer in hell.

I do not see that attitude here:

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, [thou] that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under [her] wings, and ye would not! - Matt 23:37

Or here,

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation.

For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. - 2 Peter 3:3-9

God's Name is I AM.

[metmom]

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.

Now, just hold on a minute there.

I expect better out of you than playing the victim card.

It wasn't a matter of you pointing out the paths our views are going to end up taking and poor little you is so misunderstood that you got *yelled at*.

In this post you stated (and I copy and paste)....Quote:"In looking back you and CB have stated indirectly:" Unquote.

That is a complete misrepresentation of what we said and a FAR cry from saying something to the effect of....."Do you realize that if you followed your statements to their natural conclusion that you'd be claiming (fillintheblank)?

So don't even go there.

Not to mention that I would disagree with those conclusions that you claim CB and I indirectly stated in post 274.

They are not foregone conclusions to our line of thinking.

[metmom]

It reminds me of that, too.

[P-Marlowe]

You may think that cute but I find it rather disingenuous and not worthy of discourse.

Harley didn't mind it when I spent half this thread challenging him.

In fact Harley was a very good sport about it. And at that time you seemed rather pleased with my challenges to his doctrinal positions.

But when I decided to put some of your opinions to the same test, you have decided that I am no longer worthy to engage in discourse with you.

Frankly that seems a bit disingenuous, don't you think?

Harley and I have a long long History of going head to head in heated debates on this forum. Yet he is one of my closest FRiends on this forum.

There is no requirement that you respond to any of my challenges. You can ignore me and eventually I will get the message and return the favor. Or you can put your theology to the test and respond honestly to all challenges put to you.

You asked for scriptures, try this one:

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: 1 Pet 3:15

[P-Marlowe]

Obviously not.

Then feel free to enlighten me on exactly what you position is. I honestly can't seem to figure it out.

Was there ever a time when God did not know that when He created Hell, that it would someday be populated by fallen men?

[HarleyD]

I fail to see how hat proves that all those who are called have no option but to respond in an affirmative way.

I've provided you with three examples now of where God calls people and they get up and follow Him. Please provide me with three scriptural examples of where God went to a specific person and ask him to follow Him and was turned down.