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]

It’s an excellent point.

[metmom]

Another thought. Since God foreknew who would and would not be saved, if He chooses to use those who would never repent as vessels of wrath, who are they to complain?

[CynicalBear]

>>last time I looked there weren't any hyper-Calvinists on this forum.<<

LOL You had better look again. When they say that God predestines Adam to sin and God predestines those who are saved that is by definition double predestination. I gave you the quotes in my last post to you that shows the comments about the predestination to sin and obviously they believe that man is predestined for salvation. That is double predestination. So yes indeed there are those on this forum who have expressed a belief in double predestination.

>>BTW, I thought you had decided not to discourse with me because I was afraid to express my beliefs.

But you did begin to express your beliefs.

[CynicalBear]

>> who are they to complain?<<

From what I have read and seen they don’t complain but rather enjoy the task.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ, and thank you for your encouragements!

The Moses incident came to mind because it is an example of someone saying "no" to God and God working around it rather than convincing him by other means, e.g. Jonah with the whale.

Of course there are always consequences. And as you say, Aaron thinking he could feast to the Lord in front of the molten calf was one of them. Big mistake.

And all the people brake off the golden earrings which [were] in their ears, and brought [them] unto Aaron. And he received [them] at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These [be] thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.

And when Aaron saw [it], he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation, and said, To morrow [is] a feast to the LORD. - Exodus 32:3-5

But I think the toughest consequence was that the Israelites were separated from God by yet another layer, the Levitical priesthood. And Moses became an object of devotion, when the glory belonged to God alone.

To God be glory, not man, never man.

[P-Marlowe]

When they say that God predestines Adam to sin and God predestines those who are saved that is by definition double predestination.

I think you are confusing the terms between fore-ordination and predestination.

That being said, let me ask you a question.

If you agree that God knows everything, then is there any act or event in your life that has yet to occur which God does not already know will happen?

If not, then are you really in control of your own destiny, or is your destiny completely subject to the will and foreknowledge of God?

BTW, What caused you to come to Christ? Did you call Him, or did He call you?

Sorry, that was more than one question.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!

Whereas I strongly agree that God may use most anyone - believer or not - to carry out His judgments, the "vessels of wrath" in Romans 9 must be "fitted to destruction:"

[What] if God, willing to shew [his] wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, - Romans 9:22-23

We Christians were not made for His wrath:

For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, - I Th 5:9

Indeed that passage indicates we are warriors for the light, against the darkness:

Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.

Therefore let us not sleep, as [do] others; but let us watch and be sober. For they that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the night.

But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation.

For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, - I Th 5:4-9

God's Name is I AM.

[HarleyD]

Why don’t you first explain to me how you believe that God can be the author of sin.

Where have I stated that God is the author of sin? I've specifically stated God endowed Adam with an independent spirit. All God did was give Adam the opportunity to say "NO". And God knew that Adam would say "NO".

I'm not being nasty but I want you to think about this. Just to be clear, are you saying God didn't know what Adam would do?

[HarleyD]

And I have wondered whether or not the term "vessels of Wrath" as used in Romans 9, refers (at least on some level) to everyone God has used to Chasten his people or to bring judgment upon nations. It does appear from that passage that these "vessels of wrath" have no individual power over the use to which God put them to. In many ways the Hebrew people were used as vessels of wrath to carry out God's judgment on people like the Amalekites.

A very good point P-M. And when the Israelites ran into the Promise Land and failed to do God's will, God set in motion to have the people of the land be a "snare" to the Israelites as a tool of chastisement:

Jdg 2:1 Now the angel of the LORD went up from Gilgal to Bochim. And he said, "I brought you up from Egypt and brought you into the land that I swore to give to your fathers. I said, 'I will never break my covenant with you,

Jdg 2:2 and you shall make no covenant with the inhabitants of this land; you shall break down their altars.' But you have not obeyed my voice. What is this you have done?

Jdg 2:3 So now I say, I will not drive them out before you, but they shall become thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare to you."

[HarleyD]

"The Moses incident..."

Yes, but let's remember that Moses and Jonah were both believers. We need to be clear that believers do make choices which our loving Father will reprove us for if we stray. It is the way we grow. (I'm sure Aaron was very hesitant about making any more golden calves.)

But I haven't seen a case of God asking a non-believer to do something and they refused. My case in point was Balaam who, given the choice, would have loved to have cursed Israel. He told King Balak that he simply couldn't do it because God wouldn't allow it. As it was, Balaam caused enough problems.

[xzins]

I actually have no problem with the rich young ruler as an example, P-M.

19 You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.' " 20 "Teacher," he declared, "all these I have kept since I was a boy." 21 Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." 22 At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth. 23 Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!"

[HarleyD]

I actually have no problem with the rich young ruler as an example, P-M.

Ah...I missed that one. That is a good one. However, there was a condition, "Then come". As we know salvation is freely given. No strings...no price.... So this couldn't have been so much a calling to come follow Christ as it was Christ telling the ruler to count the cost.

BTW-Did the ruler ever become a disciple? Some believe that the naked young man who ran away at the scene of our Lord's arrest was actually the rich, young ruler.

Mar 14:51-52 And a young man followed him, with nothing but a linen cloth about his body. And they seized him, but he left the linen cloth and ran away naked.

While this is pure speculation, I always like thinking this was the rich, young ruler who did indeed give up everything. If so, then it was a genuine call and he did answer the call.

[xzins]

I’ve not heard the rich young ruler as the naked young man. Most often I’ve heard it as being similar to the Apostle John’s reluctance to mention himself by name in his writings. The beloved apostle who leaned on Jesus’ chest was....John. But he doesn’t say so.

Assuming that to be some kind of literary device to demonstrate humility, then carrying it to the gospel of Mark, we would have Mark himself being the young man who fled.

Obviously, this is pure speculation, too, but it’s always fun to know different approaches.

The part that makes it likely in this case that it was a pure calling is that it is preceded with the lines about Jesus loving the young man.

However, it is (again speculation) possible that the young man responded later after the resurrection in the revival that followed the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost.

[HarleyD]

Yes, we need to be careful not to read things into the scriptures. This is what Gill states:

And there followed him a certain young man,.... Some think this was John, the beloved disciple, and the youngest of the disciples; others, that it was James, the brother of our Lord; but he does not seem to be any of the disciples of Christ, since he is manifestly distinguished from them, who all forsook him and fled: some have thought, that he was a young man of the house, where Christ and his disciples ate their passover; who had followed him to the garden, and still followed him, to see what would be the issue of things: but it seems most likely, that he was one that lived in an house in Gethsemane, or in or near the garden; who being awaked out of sleep with the noise of a band of soldiers, and others with them, leaped out of bed, and ran out in his shirt, and followed after them, to know what was the matter:

No one really seems to know. I just like to think the best happened.

The part that makes it likely in this case that it was a pure calling is that it is preceded with the lines about Jesus loving the young man.

As far as Jesus loving the man and then calling him, this is what Gill states:

Then Jesus, beholding him, loved him,.... Not as God, with that special love, with which he loves his people, who were given him by the Father, are redeemed by his blood, whom he calls by his grace, justifies by his righteousness, forgives their iniquities, and, at last, glorifies: but as man, he had an human affection for him; so far as there was any appearance of moral good in him, it was agreeable to him, who loves righteousness, and hates iniquity; and though the young man betrayed much vanity, pride, and conceit, he did not use him roughly, but kindly, and tenderly; he beheld him, he looked wistly upon him, when he said the above words; which look intimated, that he could not believe he had perfectly, and completely kept all the commandments; however, he did not choose to reproach him with a lie, and charge him with pride and arrogance, but gave him good words, and spoke friendly to him; and, as far as he could, commended him for his diligence in observing the commands: in this sense the word is observed to be used by the Septuagint interpreters, as when it is said of Ahab, 2Ch_18:2, that he "persuaded him" (Jehoshaphat), they render it, ηγαπα, "he loved him to go up to Ramoth Gilead": he gave him good words, he spake friendly to him, and by fair speeches prevailed upon him: and so when it said of the Israelites, Psa_78:36; "they did flatter him", (God,) they render it, ηγαπησαν, "they loved him with their mouth"; spoke very well to him, and of him, praised him, and his works, and in this way expressed affection to him, though it was only with their mouths. Moreover, Christ might not only speak kindly to this young man, but he might make use of some external gesture: which showed an human affection to him, and respect for him. Dr, Lightfoot conjectures it might be by kissing his head, which might be conveniently done, as he was now on his knees; and since this was frequently used by the Jewish doctors, as an expression of respect, of which he gives various instances; and more might be added, especially out of the book of Zohar, where we often read of one Rabbi kissing the head or another, or of his pupil. But the sense of this phrase, which pleases me best of all, is what may be collected from the use of it among the "seventy" interpreters, who often render the Hebrew רחם, which signifies to "have compassion", or "show pity", by the word here used: so Pro_28:13, "whoso confesseth and forsaketh, shall have mercy", they interpret αγαπηθησεται, "shall be loved" and Hos_2:23, "I will have mercy on her that had not obtained mercy", they render αγαπησω, "l will love her that was not beloved"; once more, Zec_10:6. "I will bring them again to place them, for I have mercy upon them", they translate οτι ηγαπησα αυτους, "because I have loved them"; see also Isa_60:10 and then, according to this use of the word, the sense is, that Jesus looked upon him when he expressed himself in such a pert manner, and had a compassionate concern for him; he pitied him for his ignorance of the law, in its spirituality and large extent; for his pride and vanity, his conceit of, and glorying in himself: wherefore, in order to mortify him, and abate these swelling thoughts of himself;

he said unto him, one thing thou lackest; before which last clause the Ethiopic version puts this, "if thou wilt be perfect", out of Mat_19:21, see the note there: and the Coptic version, and two of Stephens's copies read it before the following,

go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross, and follow me. This young man's reigning sin seems to have been an overweening affection for the things of this world; his riches were his idol, on which his heart was set, and in which he trusted: wherefore he was so far from keeping all the commandments, that he had not kept the first; "thou shalt have no other gods before me": there was more than one thing wanting in him, but Christ takes notice of this as the first; and there was no need to mention any other; this touched him sensibly, and fully tried, and sufficiently exposed the vanity of his boasted perfection. That clause, "take up the cross", is omitted in the Vulgate Latin version, as it is not mentioned by Matthew. The Ethiopic version reads it, "the cross of thy death", and places it before, "come and follow me"; as do also the Syriac and Persic versions; but the Arabic reads it last of all;

[xzins]

Gill seems to be saying that the Lord had regard or liking for the man rather than love.

However, if we assume that the Lord was incapable of feigned regard or feigned liking or feigned offers, then we still have the Lord making a serious offer to the young man.

“Sell what you have and come, follow me.”

[CynicalBear]

>> If you agree that God knows everything, then is there any act or event in your life that has yet to occur which God does not already know will happen?<<

Why do you continue to ask questions I have already answered and that anyone who is a Christian understands? God is omniscient which I have stated numerous times. By definition if He is omniscient He knows all there is to know.

>> If not, then are you really in control of your own destiny, or is your destiny completely subject to the will and foreknowledge of God?<<

Knowing what will happen and controlling what will happen are two separate things. If I know that at noon the sun will be overhead that does not mean I made it happen. If I know that a person is driving too fast to stop at the railroad crossing with a train coming and that there’s going to be an accident that doesn’t mean I made that accident happen. Also, it may be my will that my son mow the lawn on Saturday but he has his own agenda and does something else I may punish him for it but he’s still my son and I wouldn’t disown him for it. But if that was just some hired hand that had not been “adopted” by me and he did things against my orders because his allegiance was to someone else I would fire him.

>> BTW, What caused you to come to Christ? Did you call Him, or did He call you?<<

I’m not sure why you keep asking these types of questions. Once again it’s something I have addressed to you in previous posts. Because of our sin nature we do not seek God in our natural state. It’s God’s calling or urging that we come to Him.

The thing people seem to have a hard time understanding is that with God there is no progression of time. He sees all at the same time. Of course we don’t totally understand that concept and all its ramifications but scripture does give some insight. As an example, Jesus had followers which He called disciples who left Him when things got tuff. He said that He knew they were not “with Him” even though they had heard the message and followed for a time. Because He knew what the outcome would be with them He just let them go back. That doesn’t mean He made them go back or caused them to go back. He also knew before hand, because of His omniscience, that the twelve would stay with Him. The same with Jacob and Esau. God knew what Jacob was going to do and also what Esau was going to do. God said He loved Jacob but hated Esau. Because God sees the end and the beginning of both He knew from the beginning what the outcome was going to be so loved what Jacob was and blessed him and knew what Esau was going to produce and hated him.

[xzins]

Knowing what will happen and controlling what will happen are two separate things.

That's true for you, CB, but not true for an omnipotent, omniscient God.

If God knew everything to happen on earth before it was created, and then had the power to create it ANYWAY, then everything He foreknew is destined to happen.

Your comment about God loving Jacob and hating Esau support what I just said above. If God knew ahead of time that He would love Jacob, then that was destined to take place.

I really don't see God's being outside time changing this dynamic. Saying God is outside time really is nothing more than a way to illustrate and explain His omniscience and omnipotence (and Omni-presence if one thinks about it.)

[P-Marlowe]

Why do you continue to ask questions I have already answered and that anyone who is a Christian understands?

I ask simple yes/no questions and you either refuse to answer them or you go into some long winded diatribe accusing me of misunderstanding or being incapable of reading your posts.

I find it quite ironic that you earlier accused me of refusing to state my positions out of fear or because I was afraid to state my beliefs, however you appear to be incapable of answering a simple Yes/No question with a Yes or a No or a humble "I don't know"

Why don't you go back, read my questions again and give me a straightforward answer?

Is that too hard? (A Yes/No Question)

[CynicalBear]

>>Where have I stated that God is the author of sin?<<

“Thus God knew very well about Adam’s character, what would happen, and ordained it to happen.” [post 77] And from your fellow Calvinist.

“Lam. 3:37-38 - Everything which happens is from God (good & evil).” [post 53]

“God managed Adam's failure to begin the human drama of failure/sin/brokenness and REDEMPTION” [post 68]

>>Just to be clear, are you saying God didn't know what Adam would do?<<

Knowing what Adam was going to do and ordering Adam to do are two different things.

[HarleyD]

Gill seems to be saying that the Lord had regard or liking for the man rather than love.

I didn't get that impression. Gill to me seems to be saying it was a different type of love. To English speaking people we only have one word for love although it takes on different meaning according to context. Thus, "I love my wife." vs "I love my dog." are different (hopefully). In Greek (and Hebrew) there are multiple words for these situations. I looked up the Greek word here and this was its rendering:

ag-ap-ah'-o Perhaps from ἄγαν agan (much; or compare [H5689]); to love (in a social or moral sense): - (be-) love (-ed).

So Gill's analysis is correct.

then we still have the Lord making a serious offer to the young man. “Sell what you have and come, follow me.”

If we make that assumption, then we have to say that the price for the rich young ruler's salvation was his net worth. I don't think that's a path we would want to take. This was the disciples' error when, after the ruler had left, Christ turned to them and told them that it's easier to go through the eye of a needle. They interpreted the situation to be precisely this, that our Lord was telling everyone "Sell what you have..." They rightful exclaimed, "Who then can be saved?".

We need to compare the ruler's attitude to Zacchaeus who freely offered half of his goods. Salvation came to his house.