Posted on 04/08/2015 1:19:59 PM PDT by metmom
Lord of all being! Thou alone canst affirm I AM THAT I AM; yet we who are made in Thine image may each one repeat ”I am,” so confessing that we derive from Thee and that our words are but an echo of Thine own. We acknowledge Thee to be the great Original of which we through Thy goodness are grateful if imperfect copies. We worship Thee, O Father Everlasting. Amen.
”God has no origin,” said Novatian and it is precisely this concept of no-origin which distinguishes That-which-is-God from whatever is not God.
Origin is a word that can apply only to things created. When we think of anything that has origin we are not thinking of God. God is self-existent, while all created things necessarily originated somewhere at some time. Aside from God, nothing is self-caused.
By our effort to discover the origin of things we confess our belief that everything was made by Someone who was made of none. By familiar experience we are taught that everything ”came from” something else. Whatever exists must have had a cause that antedates it and was at least equal to it, since the lesser cannot produce the greater. Any person or thing may be at once both caused and the cause of someone or something else; and so, back to the One who is the cause of all but is Himself caused by none.
The child by his question, ”Where did God come from?” is unwittingly acknowledging his creaturehood. Already the concept of cause and source and origin is firmly fixed in his mind. He knows that everything around him came from something other than itself, and he simply extends that concept upward to God. The little philosopher is thinking in true creature-idiom and, allowing for his lack of basic information, he is reasoning correctly. He must be told that God has no origin, and he will find this hard to grasp since it introduces a category with which he is wholly unfamiliar and contradicts the bent toward origin-seeking so deeply ingrained in all intelligent beings, a bent that impels them to probe ever back and back toward undiscovered beginnings.
To think steadily of that to which the idea of origin cannot apply is not easy, if indeed it is possible at all. Just as under certain conditions a tiny point of light can be seen, not by looking directly, at it but by focusing the eyes slightly to one side, so it is with the idea of the Uncreated. When we try to focus our thought upon One who is pure uncreated being we may, see nothing at all, for He dwelleth in light that no man can approach unto. Only by faith and love are we able to glimpse Him as he passes by our shelter in the cleft of the rock. ”And although this knowledge is very cloudy, vague and general,” says Michael de Molinos, "being supernatural, it produces a far more clear and perfect cognition of God than any sensible or particular apprehension that can be formed in this life; since all corporeal and sensible images are immeasurably remote from God.”
The human mind, being created, has an understandable uneasiness about the Uncreated. We do not find it comfortable to allow for the presence of One who is wholly outside of the circle of our familiar knowledge. We tend to be disquieted by the thought of One who does not account to us for His being, who is responsible to no one, who is self-existent, self-dependent and self-sufficient.
Philosophy and science have not always been friendly toward the idea of God, the reason being that they are dedicated to the task of accounting for things and are impatient with anything that refuses to give an account of itself. The philosopher and the scientist will admit that there is much that they do not know; but that is quite another thing from admitting that there is something which they can never know, which indeed they have no technique for discovering.
To admit that there is One who lies beyond us, who exists outside of all our categories, who will not be dismissed with a name, who will not appear before the bar of our reason, nor submit to our curious inquiries: this requires a great deal of humility, more than most of us possess, so we save face by thinking God down to our level, or at least down to where we can manage Him. Yet how He eludes us! For He is everywhere while He is nowhere, for ”where” has to do with matter and space, and God is independent of both. He is unaffected by time or motion, is wholly self-dependent and owes nothing to the worlds His hands have made.
Timeless, spaceless, single, lonely, Yet sublimely Three, Thou art grandly, always, only God is Unity! Lone in grandeur, lone in glory, Who shall tell Thy wondrous story? Awful Trinity! Frederick W. Faber
It is not a cheerful thought that millions of us who live in a land of Bibles, who belong to churches and labor to promote the Christian religion, may yet pass our whole life on this earth without once having thought or tried to think seriously about the being of God. Few of us have let our hearts gaze in wonder at the I AM, the self-existent Self back of which no creature can think. Such thoughts are too painful for us. We prefer to think where it will do more good – about how to build a better mousetrap, for instance, or how to make two blades of grass grow where one grew before. And for this we are now paying a too heavy price in the secularlzation of our religion and the decay of our inner lives.
Perhaps some sincere but puzzled Christian may at this juncture wish to inquire about the practicality of such concepts as I am trying to set forth here. ”What bearing does this have on my life?” he may ask. ”What possible meaning can the self-existence of God have for me and others like me in a world such as this and in times such as these?”
To this I reply that, because we are the handiwork of God, it follows that all our problems and their solutions are theological. Some knowledge of what kind of God it is that operates the universe is indispensable to a sound philosophy of life and a sane outlook on the world scene.
The much-quoted advice of Alexander Pope, Know then thyself, presume not God to scan: The proper study of mankind is man, if followed literally would destroy any possibility of man’s ever knowing himself in any but the most superficial way. We can never know who or what we are till we know at least something of what God is. For this reason the self-existence of God is not a wisp of dry doctrine, academic and remote; it is in fact as near as our breath and as practical as the latest surgical technique.
For reasons known only to Himself, God honored man above all other beings by creating him in His own image. And let it be understood that the divine image in man is not a poetic fancy, not an idea born of religious longing. It is a solid theological fact, taught plainly throughout the Sacred Scriptures and recognized by the Church as a truth necessary to a right understanding of the Christian faith.
Man is a created being, a derived and contingent self, who of himself possesses nothing but is dependent each moment for his existence upon the One who created him after His own likeness. The fact of God is necessary to the fact of man. Think God away and man has no ground of existence.
That God is everything and man nothing is a basic tenet of Christian faith and devotion; and here the teachings of Christianity coincide with those of the more advanced and philosophical religions of the East. Man for all his genius is but an echo of the original Voice, a reflection of the uncreated Light. As a sunbeam perishes when cut off from the sun, so man apart from God would pass back into the void of nothingness from which he first leaped at the creative call.
Not man only, but everything that exists came out of and is dependent upon the continuing creative impulse. ”In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…. All things were made by him and without him was not any thing made that was made.” That is how John explains it, and with him agrees the apostle Paul: ”For by him were all things created, that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him; and he is before all things, and by him all things consist.” To this witness the writer to the Hebrews adds his voice, testifying of Christ that He is the brightness of God’s glory and the express image of His Person, and that He upholds all things by the word of His power.
In this utter dependence of all things upon the creative will of God lies the possibility for both holiness and sin. One of the marks of God’s image in man is his ability to exercise moral choice. The teaching of Christianity is that man chose to be independent of God and confirmed his choice by deliberately disobeying a divine command. This act violated the relationship that normally existed between God and His creature; it rejected God as the ground of existence and threw man back upon himself. Thereafter he became not a planet revolving around the central Sun, but a sun in his own right, around which everything else must revolve.
A more positive assertion of selfhood could not be imagined than those words of God to Moses: I AM THAT I AM. Everything God is, everything that is God, is set forth in that unqualified declaration of independent being. Yet in God, self is not sin but the quintessence of all possible goodness, holiness and truth.
The natural man is a sinner because and only because he challenges God’s selfhood in relation to his own. In all else he may willingly accept the sovereignty of God; in his own life he rejects it. For him, God’s dominion ends where his begins. For him, self becomes Self, and in this he unconsciously imitates Lucifer, that fallen son of the morning who said in his heart, ”I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God. . . . I will be like the Most High.”
Yet so subtle is self that scarcely anyone is conscious of its presence. Because man is born a rebel, he is unaware that he is one. His constant assertion of self, as far as he thinks of it at all, appears to him a perfectly normal thing. He is willing to share himself, sometimes even to sacrifice himself for a desired end, but never to dethrone himself. No matter how far down the scale of social acceptance he may slide, he is still in his own eyes a king on a throne, and no one, not even God, can take that throne from him.
Sin has many manifestations but its essence is one. A moral being, created to worship before the throne of God, sits on the throne of his own selfhood and from that elevated position declares, ”I AM.” That is sin in its concentrated essence; yet because it is natural it appears to be good. It is only when in the gospel the soul is brought before the face of the Most Holy One without the protective shield of ignorance that the frightful moral incongruity is brought home to the conscience. In the language of evangelism the man who is thus confronted by the fiery presence of Almighty God is said to be under conviction. Christ referred to this when He said of the Spirit whom He would send to the world, ”And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment.”
The earliest fulfillment of these words of Christ was at Pentecost after Peter had preached the first great Christian sermon. ”Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?” This ”What shall we do?” is the deep heart cry of every man who suddenly realizes that he is a usurper and sits on a stolen throne. However painful, it is precisely this acute moral consternation that produces true repentance and makes a robust Christian after the penitent has been dethroned and has found forgiveness and peace through the gospel.
”Purity of heart is to will one thing,” said Kierkegaard, and we may with equal truth turn this about and declare, ”The essence of sin is to will one thing,” for to set our will against the will of God is to dethrone God and make ourselves supreme in the little kingdom of Mansoul. This is sin at its evil root. Sins may multiply like the sands by the seashore, but they are yet one. Sins are because sin is. This is the rationale behind the much maligned doctrine of natural depravity which holds that the independent man can do nothing but sin and that his good deeds are really not good at all. His best religious works God rejects as He rejected the offering of Cain. Only when he has restored his stolen throne to God are his works acceptable.
The struggle of the Christian man to be good while the bent toward self-assertion still lives within him as a kind of unconscious moral reflex is vividly described by the apostle Paul in the seventh chapter of his Roman Epistle; and his testimony is in full accord with the teaching of the prophets. Eight hundred years before the advent of Christ the prophet Isaiah identified sin as rebellion against the will of God and the assertion of the right of each man to choose for himself the way he shall go. ”All we like sheep have gone astray,” he said, ”we have turned every one to his own way,” and I believe that no more accurate description of sin has ever been given.
The witness of the saints has been in full harmony with prophet and apostle, that an inward principle of self lies at the source of human conduct, turning everything men do into evil. To save us completely Christ must reverse the bent of our nature; He must plant a new principle within us so that our subsequent conduct will spring out of a desire to promote the honor of God and the good of our fellow men. The old self-sins must die, and the only instrument by which they can be slain is the Cross. ”If any man come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me,” said our Lord, and years later the victorious Paul could say, ”I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me.”
My God, shall sin its power maintain And in my soul defiant live! ‘Tis not enough that Thou forgive, The cross must rise and self be slain. O God of love, Thy power disclose: ‘Tis not enough that Christ should rise, I, too, must seek the brightening skies, And rise from death, as Christ arose. Greek hymn
Tozer ping
Beyond comprehension.
What shall we do?
Turn to Christ.
It’s the ONLY answer.
God ca’t be self-existent because Mary is His mother. /sarc
LOL!
We humans seem to have this need to contribute something to our salvation.
Totally throwing yourself on the mercy of God’s court and trusting Him completely, can be a scary place for control freaks like human beings.
Only possible when you see your self as God sees you..rather than on how you see yourself or others see you. It’s very humbling when you are ‘in’ your sins....otherwise it’s very freeing when you’re no longer in that place rather ‘in’ Christ....know you’re forgiven and the relationship he designed us for is established.
Oh what love... From the Divine and Almighty!
While Mary is not the mother of the Triune God who always was and always will be, the Holy Spirit clearly reveals in Matthew 1-2 and Luke 1-2 that God chose Mary to be His mother while he was incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ.
So true.
I've noticed that Mary was TOLD what was going to happen.
Yes, Mary is the mother of Jesus, God with us, the incarnation.
She is NOT the mother of GOD.
Yes, Mary is the mother of Jesus, God with us, the incarnation.
She is NOT the mother of GOD.
I agree that Mary is not the mother of the Triune God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. No one was before God. No one is greater than God. No one is more powerful than God.
Everything that was done was through the will of the Father. His only begotten Son becoming incarnate, Mary conceiving and bringing forth His Son, Mary and Joseph taking care of His Son as a child. It is only in this sense that Mary can be called the mother of God, God with us, God incarnate, Jesus Christ.
This does not make Mary any more than what scripture tells us, highly favored and blessed among women.
One thing I keep in mind when thinking about the relationship between Jesus and Mary is what He said in Luke 2:49: “And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?” This is one of the sayings His mother kept in her heart, that He must be about His Father’s business. First, last, and always.
Saying *mother of God* does NOT say the same thing as saying *mother of Jesus*.
*Mother of God* states that GOD had a mother, a beginning.
*Mother of Jesus* states that the incarnation had a beginning, with no risk of misinterpretation that someone might think that God was a conceived being.
The Holy Spirit used the phrase *mother of Jesus* for a reason and the Catholic church had and has no business trying to correct the work of the Holy Spirit.
What chutzpah. Man can never improve on what God does. He can only mess it up more.
The Holy Spirit clearly reveals that the Father chose Mary to be the mother of His Son while He was in the flesh. Not that God had a beginning, but that “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”
While it is true that the words “mother of God” do not appear in Scripture, the Holy Spirit clearly reveals that Mary was the mother of God incarnate. If you can show me how the following verses do not show that Mary is the mother of God incarnate, please do so.
Matthew 1 tells us that the angel of the Lord told Joseph that Mary shall bring forth a son, who shall save his people from their sins; that this was done, to fulfill that which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.”
Does this not show that Mary was the mother of our Savior who they shall call God with us?
Luke 1 tells us that the angel Gabriel told Mary that she shall conceive in her womb, and bring forth a son, and shall call his name Jesus; that He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. The angel further said The Holy Ghost shall come upon her, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow her: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of her shall be called the Son of God.
Does this not show that Mary was the mother of the Son of the Highest whose kingdom shall have no end, and who shall be called the Son of God?
Luke 2 tells us that Elisabeth’s son leaped in her womb when Mary greeted her; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
Does this not show Elisabeth calling Mary the mother of the Lord?
After Mary gave birth to Jesus in Bethlehem, the angel of the Lord told shepherds that unto them is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.
Does this not show that Mary was the mother of our Savior, Christ the Lord?
Luke 2 also tells us that it was revealed to Simeon by the Holy Ghost that he should not see death before he had seen the Lord’s Christ; and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, Simeon took him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said, Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel, and Simeon said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against; (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.
Does this not show Simeon saying that he has seen the Lord to Mary the Lord’s mother?
When the wise men come into the house where they found the King of the Jews, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him.
Does this not show the wise men worshipping Christ the King in the presence of Mary His mother?
It is unbelievable that God would choose to lower Himself to become a human being, to allow Himself to be conceived of and born from a woman, to be a servant to His fellow man, washing His disciples’ feet, to subject Himself to the Jewish leaders and the Roman officials, to allow Himself to be spit upon, scourged, have a crown of thorns put on His head, sentenced to death and crucified on a cross. Yet this is what we believe. Why do you find it so much harder to believe that He would also subject Himself to His mother Mary and His foster father Joseph, especially when the Holy Spirit tells us in Luke 2:51 that this is exactly what He did? It was not just the human Jesus that “was subject unto them.” It was God the Son, who said unto them, “wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?”
Did I ever say that Mary was not the mother of God Incarnate? Then why would you challenge me to show that Scripture doesn't show something that it doesn't show.
It is unbelievable that God would choose to lower Himself to become a human being, to allow Himself to be conceived of and born from a woman, to be a servant to His fellow man, washing His disciples’ feet, to subject Himself to the Jewish leaders and the Roman officials, to allow Himself to be spit upon, scourged, have a crown of thorns put on His head, sentenced to death and crucified on a cross. Yet this is what we believe. Why do you find it so much harder to believe that He would also subject Himself to His mother Mary and His foster father Joseph, especially when the Holy Spirit tells us in Luke 2:51 that this is exactly what He did?
And here's your error. GOD did not subject Himself to Mary and Joseph. JESUS did while He was still under their authority.
It was not just the human Jesus that “was subject unto them.” It was God the Son, who said unto them, “wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?”
God in any person is NOT subject to humans. Jesus, the incarnation of God, was as long as He was under their authority.
In the gospels, once He reached adulthood, He was no longer required to obey them as seen by His actions in dealing with his family once He started His ministry.
Saying *mother of God* does not say or mean the same thing as saying *mother of Jesus* and you really did not need to waste your time proving to me something that I never disagreed with in the first place, that is that Mary is the mother of Jesus.
Did I ever say that Mary was not the mother of God Incarnate?
Are you saying that God Incarnate is not God? Isn’t God the Son just as much God as God the Father and God the Holy Spirit? Isn’t each person of the Trinity God, whole and entire? Why wouldn’t that make Mary the mother of God in the person of Jesus Christ, who is God the Son, God Incarnate, God with us? How do you separate Jesus from God?
.
Your problem is with the definition of motherhood, not Godhood.
.
Your problem is with the definition of motherhood, not Godhood.
Thank you for agreeing that my problem is not with the definition of Godhead. Scripture shows us, though, that the Holy Spirit has revealed the motherhood of Mary. The problem is attempting to separate Jesus from God. How is that done?
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.