Posted on 07/08/2012 2:51:23 PM PDT by NYer
Catholic ping!
I love how the story ends in Luke when the crowd tries to kill Jesus:
“But He, passing through the midst of them, went His way.”
What an understatement!
“Even Jesus Can Have a Bad Day in the Pulpit”
Pffft! Poppycock!
This statement typifies the errant mindset underlying the article. God the Father does not make mistakes, Jesus the Son does not make mistakes, the Holy Spirit does not make mistakes. All of the "mistakes" you perceive are intentional actions taken to accomplish the plan conceived before the foundation of the world. They are just too clever for your author to understand how they fit.
Yet, when I was honest with myself, I realized that I DID fear God, and I wondered at how this could be so, since I also loved God. How could I feel both things at the same time? I came to understand (after longer than I want to admit), that the fear was of violating God's law. Because deep down I realized that there was no way around it, because it came from God's love. And that meant I couldn't argue it was unfair.
That single contemplation led directly to the deepest spiritual experiences of my life. And it's also led me to see th world in a kind of black-and-white way - there really are only two kinds of people in the world: those who fear violating God's law, and those who don't.
It's kind of a spiritual intelligence test that measures a single concept: whether a person understands that God's law literally cannot be broken. It might seem that we have that choice, but ultimately, we don't. The only thing that gets broken against God's law, is us.
And from that, we learn everything we need to know - humility, awe, wonder, and love for God deeper than anything we ever thought we could experience.
I reread the article. The word “mistake” does not appear anywhere. The point of the article is that even when Jesus himself preached in person, some people were too hard-headed to get the message. And they had freedom of choice to go their own way (to disaster, but we have free choice).
Thank you, Talisker, for sharing such profound insight! No doubt, along the way, you also began to comprehend something you heard early on in your life: Wisdom comes with age. The two go hand in hand. Again, thanks for the post and ping.
That's because the author is believing in some Mexican named Jesus, not the soul saving Jesus Christ, Son of God, those of us who are saved believe in.
Fools shouldn't write such articles, it reveals so much about them, and sheds no light on any other truth.
I don't see an accusation of a mistake there. Perhaps it would be better said with a little punctuation:
"There are some things even God can’t do, not because he has no power, but because he respects our choices."
Though I'd personally think replacing the "can't" with "won't" would be better, there is a point to be made there:
God gave us free-will, to override that will or even limit it, is to make it no longer free. (That is, the idea of a "limited free-will" is self-contradictory.)
It is the people who rejected the truth who are having 'the bad day', the message did exactly what it was suppose to.
"Any other truth"?
Truth is one, friend. And contempt, per se, is not intelligence - or faith. It is a luciferian light that draws people into darkness.
You even indicat, in your scathing post, that there are "those of us who are saved". Which means, of course, that there are "those who are unsaved" - right? Now, does God randomly choose people to save or not? Or are we all given a choice? If the latter, then there are those who choose to turn away from God, even when they hear the truth.
Right?
That's what this article is about - those people, who choose to turn away when they hear God's truth.
God's ONE truth.
If you have a problem with that, you have a problem with the ways of God - not the author.
Many, many people have the same problem. They mistake the message, for the Source.
Kind of like worshipping a "light in the darkness" without realizing - until it's too late - that's it's an oncoming train in a tunnel.
With inevitably similiar results.
Amen
Funny, my bible says those that Jesus did not intend for them to hear or understand
Can you elaborate a bit? You wrote a dependent clause. Please finish the thought.
(Like the Monsignor illuminates here, I think there are still quite a few of those rocky hearts around, here and there.) :-)
Thanks for the ping and the article.
I use to think the big lie...er heresy was “Bible Alone” but no, it’s
“Faith Alone.”
Non-Catholic Christians believe “Faith Alone” does everything, there is no cooperation on our part. Messes them up on all matters of faith.
James 2:24
Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?
I've looked at 4 Protestant translations (KJV, NKJV, NASB, ASB) and can't find that language. All of them (except for some archaic English ... "thence" and the like) are substantially similar to the reading I heard at Mass yesterday.
God gave us free-will, to override that will or even limit it, is to make it no longer free. (That is, the idea of a "limited free-will" is self-contradictory.)
With all due respect, the point of my post is that the misperception that free-will exists is the error at bottom. If you disagree, please give us the passage where it is taught that man's choosing is free from God's influence. I believe it is possible to provide upwards of 50 passages wherein man's choice is directed by God.
"And as soon as He was lone, His followers along with the the twelve began asking Him about the parables. And He was saying to them, 'To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to those who are OUTSIDE get everything in parables, IN ORDER THAT WHILE SEEING, THEY MAY SEE AND NOT PERCEIVE; AND WHILE HEARING, THEY MAY HEAR AND NOT UNDERSTAND LEST THEY RETURN AGAIN AND BE FORGIVEN."
This fact described by Jesus is why there are those humans who are among the elect (and are caused to hear and believe) and those who cannot be rescued.
Check also John 6:44, 65
Rom. 9
Acts 13:48
Eph. 1
and dozens of other passages describing the "chosen", the "elect", the "adopted".
The text leaves us with a peculiar situation...if we are called to choose Christ AND only those whom Jesus allows to come, may come, then the calls to choose Him must be subsumed by the larger picture of the God limiting the "choosing". Both "freedom to choose" and "God's choice standing" cannot be true at the same time. Mutual exclusivity, and all that. This likely does not comport with RC tradition, but the Scriptures are clear.
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.