| 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 ...
I don’t play that game. You know precisely what I mean.
Anyway, you are not responsible : omnicausality !
Nice cut and paste but “ordained” still means to cause or direct that it happens. How many times do I need to say that God does not cause, order, direct or make sin happen? Attempting to hide error in verbiage doesn’t change that fact. Asking if I believe that God caused or ordered sin to happen a hundred different ways is not going to change my answer.
Nice cut and paste but “ordained” still means to cause or direct that it happens. How many times do I need to say that God does not cause, order, direct or make sin happen? Attempting to hide error in verbiage doesn’t change that fact. Asking if I believe that God caused or ordered sin to happen a hundred different ways is not going to change my answer.
When a person refuses to look at the entire story delivered to man throughout the Scriptures, one can come away with a piece-meal, patchwork quilt that includes man's free will and misunderstandings like the above.
"And you don’t see how sick and twisted that theology is?"
Well, here is more of that non-contentious, kindness you demanded. The only "sick and twisted" theology around here is that man-made Arminian/Semi-Pelagian human construct nonsense touted by the RCC and many of your posts. It was heresy then, it is heresy now.
You are playing some kind of game. I have no idea what you are getting at.
Good morning, and no I didn’t make your point at least as I understand your point. I understood you to be saying that it meant that it was not “all” as in everyone but that you meant “all” as in some of each kind. When God said all I take Him at his word as to mean all and not just some of each kind. I have already posted the meaning of the word used and the usage does not allow for the interpretation of “some of each kind”. When I said “every kind” I meant all of every kind not just some of every kind.
I meant an INTERNAL call-not an EXTERNAL call.
Sounds like you found a loophole in my argument. Serves me right for not having a laywer looking it over. But then I didn’t want to charged $250 for that post. :O)
When I said “every kind” I meant all of every kind not just some of every kind."
And, I simply said, thank you, that was my point. "Every kind" of person is exactly what God wants. It is exactly what He is getting.
Trust me, I believe PM and myself understand completely.
I have the same situation with people telling me I'm saying God MADE Adam to sin. No matter how many times I've responded to this, it just keeps popping back up.
Omniscient
having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things.
>> since there are entire groups that believe that God is omniscient and that He can remain that way without knowing every contingency.<<
LOL Then I would say they also have a disconnect of some sort with the understanding of what omniscient means.
So if I read this correctly, you believe that the fall of man just "happened"? God had no part in anything.
Asking if I believe that God caused...sin
See posts above this.
Other than you used the word “ordained” which means “To order by virtue of superior authority; decree or enact or to prearrange unalterably; predestine
Predestine - 1. To fix upon, decide, or decree in advance; foreordain. 2. Theology To foreordain or elect by divine will or decree.
>> In fact I've been very clear that Adam was an independent thinker<<
You may have thought you were clear but you then said two different things. Adam could not both have been an “independent thinker” with the will to not sin if God “ordered by superior authority”, prearrange unalterably” or “decreed in advance” that he sin. Either you believe Adam had a choice or you believe he didn’t. If Adam had a choice, than God didn’t “ordain” that Adam sin. If God “ordained” that Adam sin, than Adam did not have a choice. Which do you believe? From what I have read you have said both.
And that is exactly what predestined means.
If there was never a point in either time or eternity where God did not know everything, past, present, and future, then why did God have to look down the timeline to determine who was going to choose him so that he could then, in turn, choose them?
If God had to look down the timeline to determine his elect, then one would have to conclude that at some point in time or eternity, God did not know who was going to choose him.
Do you believe that God’s selection of you to follow him was based upon his looking into the future and discovering that you were going to follow him?
Or did you choose to follow him because he first chose you to be one of his followers?
I agree with you that God does know every contingency, but that does not mean there are not groups that believe otherwise. Not only do they believe otherwise, they define omniscience in such a way that they allow themselves still to say that God is omniscient.
So, it’s entirely legitimate to inquire about someone’s understanding of omniscience. Simply affirming one believes God is omniscient doesn’t really tell the entire story.
There are also groups that believe “God has developed” over time. So, “God in His early stages” would be less knowledgeable that when He finally came into His full powers. There are groups, for example, that believe individuals are in the process of growing into gods.
So, it makes sense to affirm what exactly a person means when he/she affirms a belief that God is omniscient. In these cases, turnabout is certainly fair play. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Iron sharpen iron. One cannot grow unless some sparks fly.
(er...and boy are the sparks flying.) :O)
Well, you tell me what you believe. Do you believe evil comes from God as you stated in post 53?
“Lam. 3:37-38 - Everything which happens is from God (good & evil).” [post 53]
Or do you believe that God gave no choice to Adam and that He “ordained” Adam to sin?
I would suggest that those two allegations would indicate that the whole of scripture is not being taken into account.
>>The only "sick and twisted" theology around here is that man-made Arminian/Semi-Pelagian human construct nonsense touted by the RCC and many of your posts.<<
I will stick by my statement that the contention that God created this world with the intent of “predestinating” or “ordaining” man to sin giving him no option thereby causing that person to be consigned to eternal torment is indeed twisted thinking.
Again, I would ask you. Did God give Adam choice or not? If He did than you can’t say He “ordained” that Adam sin. If He didn’t than you can’t say Adam had a choice.
What follows is a letter from Greg Boyd, one of the major proponents of Open Theism. It is found at: http://marcdav.files.wordpress.com/2006/08/gregs-letter1.doc
Just for clarities sake, I am not the addressee of this letter. This is simply a quick exposition of Boyd's open theism that I found on the web. In it, Boyd explains essentially that God perfectly knows all reality, but that possibilities are not yet part of reality, so God doesn't know them yet. But he nonetheless calls that omniscience.
Posted with permission by Greg Boyd:Hi Marc,
I'm afraid you have misunderstood my open view if you think I'm "denying omniscience." The open view is NOT about the scope or perfection of God's knowledge. I unequivocally affirm God is omniscient. He knows EVERYTHING exactly as it is. The open view is rather about THE NATURE OF THE REALITY GOD PERFECTLY KNOWS. The issue is: Does the reality God perfectly knows include possibilities or not? The open view simply says "yes." The future is in part comprised of possibilities. And since God knows all of reality perfectly -- exactly as it is -- God knows possibilities AS POSSIBILITIES.
The primary reason I hold to the open view is that I simply can't with integrity make sense out of a wealth of scripture unless I suppose that the future somewhat consists of possibilities. (See my book God of the Possible and, more deeply, Satan and the Problem of Evil). For example (off the top of my head):
• God many times speaks and even thinks (e.g. Ex. 13.17) of the future in terms of what might and might not happen. For example, he tells Ezekiel to enact a certain prophecy, promising him that "perhaps" the children of Israel will understand (Ezek. 12.3). Turns out they DIDN'T. If God motivated Ezekiel by telling him that the children of Israel MIGHT understand, while knowing from all eternity they would NOT understand, was he lying?
• God frequently changes his mind, sometimes after specifically declaring he INTENDED to act in a certain way. (If it was eternally certain he wouldn't change his mind, a) what does the Bible mean when it says he DID change his mind and b) was he lying when he INTENDED to do what he ended up not doing.
• God sometimes says he EXPECTED something to happen that ended up not happening. (e.g. Jer.3.7-9, 19 I believe).
• God sometimes REGRETS the way things turn out -- even things he himself did. (e.g. Gen.6.6; I Sam.15.12)
• God is frustrated, trying to accomplish things that don't turn out as he wished (e.g. saving all people). Why try to do something you know can't be accomplished.
• Many other verses imply an open future. (e.g. 2 Pet. 3.12 which tells us to "speed up" the time of the second coming).
Now -- and read this carefully Marc -- many fear that a God who faces a partly open future can't be sovereign. That is, they think that unless God foreknows all that's going to come to pass as a certainty, he can't promise to work all things together for the better (Rom. 8.28). And they think that the open view LIMITS GOD. The truth (read carefully) is that those who think God would gain anything by knowing the future as a certainty rather than partly as a possibility ARE LIMITING GOD.
Think about it. The only reason you and I loose any ability to perfectly anticipate a POSSIBILITY as opposed to a CERTAINTY is because we have LIMITED intelligence. The more possibilities we have to consider, the less perfectly we can anticipate any of them because we have to spread our intelligence thin to cover the possibilities. (Hence, for example, we find chess more stressful than working on an assembly line).
But God has INFINITE INTELLIGENCE. This means that God doesn't have to fraction up his intelligence to cover possibilities. This implies that GOD COULD CONSIDER EACH AND EVERY ONE OF A TRILLION TRILLION POSSIBILITES AS THOUGH EACH ONE WAS THE ONLY POSSIBILITIY.
In other words, if God has unlimited (infinite) intelligence, there is no functional difference between anticipating a possibility and anticipating a certainty. If you're playing God in chess, any move you make he has been anticipating from the beginning of the game AS THOUGH YOU WERE PREDESTINED TO MAKE IT. God's been considering THAT VERY MOVE from the beginning of the game and planning a perfect response to it -- as though you HAD to make it. It's just that God is so smart, you didn't HAVE to move the way you did for God to perfectly anticipate it as though you DID have to make it.
So, an open theist can say, as confidently as one who holds to exhaustively definite foreknowledge, that whatever happens, God has been anticipating that event from the foundation of the world and has a perfect plan in place to bring good out of evil.
I hope you can see that the God of the open view doesn't know "less" than the God of classical theism. He knows MORE. He "over-knows" the future. He has the same anticipatory power as the view of God who foreknows with certainty, its just that he's infinitely smarter, for he doesn't have to know the future exhaustively as a certainty in order to anticipate it AS THOUGH it was a certainty. Chew on it Marc. Read up on it if you are interested.
Blessings on you
Greg
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.