CCC Discussion: The Desire For God

[Stylteralmaldo]

I thought it might be a good idea to discuss our differences by starting at the beginning of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and then progress forward from there to see where the real points of agreement/disagreement may be with various faith traditions.

The format for these discussions will be as follows:

(1) Indicate in the poll if you agree with the various paragraphs indicated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Please note that your answers will be known to others in the forum.
(2) If you wish, express the reasons for your selection(s) in the thread.
(3) Discuss the issues in the thread with each other as desired (in a respectful manner ).

The purpose of this thread, and the others to come related to it is to dialogue with others to see if we can at the very least understand each others points of view more clearly, or perhaps come closer together as people learning to seek the truth about ourselves and/or God.​

I. THE DESIRE FOR GOD
27 The desire for God is written in the human heart, because man is created by God and for God; and God never ceases to draw man to himself. Only in God will he find the truth and happiness he never stops searching for:

The dignity of man rests above all on the fact that he is called to communion with God. This invitation to converse with God is addressed to man as soon as he comes into being. For if man exists it is because God has created him through love, and through love continues to hold him in existence. He cannot live fully according to truth unless he freely acknowledges that love and entrusts himself to his creator. (Vatican Council II)

28 In many ways, throughout history down to the present day, men have given expression to their quest for God in their religious beliefs and behavior: in their prayers, sacrifices, rituals, meditations, and so forth. These forms of religious expression, despite the ambiguities they often bring with them, are so universal that one may well call man a religious being:

From one ancestor [God] made all nations to inhabit the whole earth, and he allotted the times of their existence and the boundaries of the places where they would live, so that they would search for God and perhaps grope for him and find him - though indeed he is not far from each one of us. For “in him we live and move and have our being.” (Acts 17:26-28)

29 But this “intimate and vital bond of man to God” can be forgotten, overlooked, or even explicitly rejected by man. Such attitudes can have different causes: revolt against evil in the world; religious ignorance or indifference; the cares and riches of this world; the scandal of bad example on the part of believers; currents of thought hostile to religion; finally, that attitude of sinful man which makes him hide from God out of fear and flee his call.

30 “Let the hearts of those who seek the LORD rejoice.” Although man can forget God or reject him, He never ceases to call every man to seek him, so as to find life and happiness. But this search for God demands of man every effort of intellect, a sound will, “an upright heart”, as well as the witness of others who teach him to seek God.

You are great, O Lord, and greatly to be praised: great is your power and your wisdom is without measure. And man, so small a part of your creation, wants to praise you: this man, though clothed with mortality and bearing the evidence of sin and the proof that you withstand the proud. Despite everything, man, though but a small a part of your creation, wants to praise you. You yourself encourage him to delight in your praise, for you have made us for yourself, and our heart is restless until it rests in you. (St. Augustine)

 

[TriuneUnity]

I thought it might be a good idea to discuss our differences by starting at the beginning of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and then progress forward from there to see where the real points of agreement/disagreement may be with various faith traditions.

The format for these discussions will be as follows:

(1) Indicate in the poll if you agree with the various paragraphs indicated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Please note that your answers will be known to others in the forum.
(2) If you wish, express the reasons for your selection(s) in the thread.
(3) Discuss the issues in the thread with each other as desired (in a respectful manner ).

The purpose of this thread, and the others to come related to it is to dialogue with others to see if we can at the very least understand each others points of view more clearly, or perhaps come closer together as people learning to seek the truth about ourselves and/or God.

This is a great idea, Styl! I’m glad you’re doing this. I don’t see an attached poll, though?

EDIT; NM, now I do

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

This is a great idea, Styl! I’m glad you’re doing this.

Thank you.

There might not be much disagreement between Christians regarding the desire for God. But then again, I could be wrong. Of course this exercise isn’t meant for Christians alone. There may be non-Christians who may disagree with the Catholic concept of the desire for God, or for those who don’t believe in God - the idea that there even* is *a desire for God.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I agree with some of everything that is stated. Since the poll options, however, are complete agreement, I didn’t vote for any. Only for the sake of accuracy.

I. THE DESIRE FOR GOD
27 The desire for God is written in the human heart, because man is created by God and for God; and God never ceases to draw man to himself. Only in God will he find the truth and happiness he never stops searching for:

The knowledge of God as a Personal Being is written into the human heart by virtue of God being his Creator. Because man still shares in some of the image of God that was placed into him, he also has the knowledge of God’s law written into his heart. Man is intrinsically a morally being, and so he is naturally wired for law. This we call the conscience. However, because man in his natural state (due to the effects of the fall) is spiritually dead, hostile to God, and suppresses both the knowledge of his Creator and the knowledge of the law, man does not desire God in any way, shape, or form. What man desires is the benefits of God; peace, joy, happiness, security, etc. Man, however, wants all of these things apart from God Himself.

I think the problem is that we, as Christians, look at other people around us as seeking the same things that we are seeking. We see unbelievers becoming involved in non-Christian practices, we see them trying to be good, seeking after peace, joy, etc. and we think to ourselves, “this person is seeking for Christ!” That is only because, though, we are seeking Christ. That does not mean they are, though. Again, they are seeking for the benefits, but not the Person.

God never ceases to draw man to Himself through two avenues; legally, through the law written into man’s heart, and savingly through the Gospel. The first, again, because of the fall, only condemns man. The second saves man.

28 In many ways, throughout history down to the present day, men have given expression to their quest for God in their religious beliefs and behavior: in their prayers, sacrifices, rituals, meditations, and so forth. These forms of religious expression, despite the ambiguities they often bring with them, are so universal that one may well call man a religious being:

I agree with most of this in principle. The only caveat I would add is from the above; man is not questing for God. The other forms of religion, prayers, sacrifices, etc. are man’s inventions in order to supplant his own desires, will, wants, and power in place of the true God. In other words, they are idolatry. These other forms bear resemblance to what God has revealed inasmuch as God’s actual law will be reflected in other religious practices because, again, man is wired by his conscience to have knowledge of God’s law.

29 But this “intimate and vital bond of man to God” can be forgotten, overlooked, or even explicitly rejected by man. Such attitudes can have different causes: revolt against evil in the world; religious ignorance or indifference; the cares and riches of this world; the scandal of bad example on the part of believers; currents of thought hostile to religion; finally, that attitude of sinful man which makes him hide from God out of fear and flee his call.

The intimate and vital bond of man to God is always forgotten, overlooked, and explicitly rejected by man.

30 “Let the hearts of those who seek the LORD rejoice.” Although man can forget God or reject him, He never ceases to call every man to seek him, so as to find life and happiness. But this search for God demands of man every effort of intellect, a sound will, “an upright heart”, as well as the witness of others who teach him to seek God.

Although man has rejected God, God never ceases to call every man to Himself. However, this call does not result in God calling man to make every effort to seek Him. God knows full well that it is impossible for man to seek Him through man’s intellect, will, or uprightness of heart. God does not command the spiritually dead to make themselves spiritually alive. Since God does desire to be united with His creation, He has given us the Gospel, which gives man the will, intellect, and heart to seek Him. It raises man from spiritual death to spiritual life so that man then does actually seek after God. He does through the word and the sacraments.

God is the only one doing the seeking. He is the Hound of Heaven.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

I agree with some of everything that is stated. Since the poll options, however, are complete agreement, I didn’t vote for any. Only for the sake of accuracy.

This is in line with what I am thinking for these discussions.

TriuneUnity:

…because man in his natural state (due to the effects of the fall) is spiritually dead, hostile to God, and suppresses both the knowledge of his Creator and the knowledge of the law, man does not desire God in any way, shape, or form. What man desires is the benefits of God; peace, joy, happiness, security, etc. Man, however, wants all of these things apart from God Himself.

At what point does someone go from seeking the benefits of God to desiring God Himself? In other words, when does the desire for God become written in our hearts or does it even occur at all?

TriuneUnity:

I agree with most of this in principle. The only caveat I would add is from the above; man is not questing for God. The other forms of religion, prayers, sacrifices, etc. are man’s inventions in order to supplant his own desires, will, wants, and power in place of the true God. In other words, they are idolatry. These other forms bear resemblance to what God has revealed inasmuch as God’s actual law will be reflected in other religious practices because, again, man is wired by his conscience to have knowledge of God’s law.

Doesn’t the natural law (created by God) draw us towards God though?

TriuneUnity:

The intimate and vital bond of man to God is always forgotten, overlooked, and explicitly rejected by man.

Could you elaborate on this? The simplicity of your statement suggests that all are damned. I’m sure this isn’t what you mean.

TriuneUnity:

Although man has rejected God, God never ceases to call every man to Himself. However, this call does not result in God calling man to make every effort to seek Him. God knows full well that it is impossible for man to seek Him through man’s intellect, will, or uprightness of heart. God does not command the spiritually dead to make themselves spiritually alive. Since God does desire to be united with His creation, He has given us the Gospel, which gives man the will, intellect, and heart to seek Him. It raises man from spiritual death to spiritual life so that man then does actually seek after God. He does through the word and the sacraments.

I don’t see much disagreement with Catholic teaching other than what I have bolded. The first sentence I bolded I need further clarification. On the second sentence, I agree except to add that it is impossible for man to seek Him through man’s intellect, will, or uprightness of heart alone.

TriuneUnity:

God is the only one doing the seeking. He is the Hound of Heaven.

If you see the Hound of Heaven running towards you, do you just stand there waiting for Him or do you respond by running towards Him? We seek God when God seeks us. God is always seeking us. We either seek him or we run from Him.

 

[TriuneUnity]

This is in line with what I am thinking for these discussions.

Good!

At what point does someone go from seeking the benefits of God to desiring God Himself? In other words, when does the desire for God become written in our hearts or does it even occur at all?

At regeneration. When we are regenerated by God’s Holy Spirit, our heart of stone is removed and replaced by a heart of flesh. Our old, sinful nature is crucified with Christ, buried, and the new man rises from the grave. We subsequently place our faith in Christ and are justified before God. We then seek to obey His will and live as members of the new creation. In an experiential sense, our old natures are still present, fighting against the Spirit, and so the new nature is locked into a battle with the old one that will not be complete until we die and are glorified (or Christ returns, whichever is first).

This entire process normally begins at our Baptism.

Doesn’t the natural law (created by God) draw us towards God though?

It does. The natural law is not the problem, though. We are. Though the natural law points to God, we take it, twist it, distort it, and turn it into something completely different. Usually resulting in idolatry.

Could you elaborate on this? The simplicity of your statement suggests that all are damned. I’m sure this isn’t what you mean.

All are damned apart from Christ. Condemned is the natural condition of man at conception.

I don’t see much disagreement with Catholic teaching other than what I have bolded. The first sentence I bolded I need further clarification. On the second sentence, I agree except to add that it is impossible for man to seek Him through man’s intellect, will, or uprightness of heart alone.

Alone. Well, I suppose that’s correct. Only Christians seek God through their intellect, will, and uprightness of heart. The natural man in the flesh does not. His intellect, will, and heart must be renewed first.

If you see the Hound of Heaven running towards you, do you just stand there waiting for Him or do you respond by running towards Him? We seek God when God seeks us. God is always seeking us. We either seek him or we run from Him.

If the natural man sees the Hound of Heaven running towards him, he runs like crazy because he knows that the Hound is only out for one thing; the death of the fleshly man. However, the Hound overtakes him by the Word and the waters of Baptism, drowns him, and an entirely new person comes forth from the old man’s tomb. That new person then embraces God and goes from God-hater to God-lover.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

…This entire process normally begins at our Baptism…

It appears that your concept of what Baptism accomplishes differs from Catholic theology is this sense:
Catholic stance: Desire for God is written in the human heart, however that desire doesn’t come to fruition until one is Baptised.
TriuneUnity stance: Desire for the benefits of God are written in the human heart, and the desire itself begins at Baptism.

Does that sound about right to you?

TriuneUnity:

It does. The natural law is not the problem, though. We are.

This seems related to the whole idea that we are in the “benefits seeking stage” rather than having any actual desire for God. Right?

TriuneUnity:

All are damned apart from Christ. Condemned is the natural condition of man at conception.

This is consistent with Catholic theology. I’m failing to see where you disagree with paragraph 29. It appears to me that you would answer these questions as follows:

Can God be forgotten? YES
Can God be overlooked? YES
Can God be explicitly rejected by man? YES

TriuneUnity:

Alone. Well, I suppose that’s correct. Only Christians seek God through their intellect, will, and uprightness of heart. The natural man in the flesh does not. His intellect, will, and heart must be renewed first.

This sounds Calvinistic to me. The ultimate conclusion is that anyone in the natural state will never have the intellectual capacity to chose Baptism because he is hopelessly trapped in the “natural man in the flesh” condition. It seems that the only recourse is God chosing to transform the individual independent of any choice by the individual to be saved.

The Catholic position still makes more sense to me: God calls us to be Baptised and because the desire for God is written in our hearts, we chose to be saved. But this saving action is prompted by God in the first place because he has written that desire in our hearts.

 

[TriuneUnity]

It appears that your concept of what Baptism accomplishes differs from Catholic theology is this sense:
Catholic stance: Desire for God is written in the human heart, however that desire doesn’t come to fruition until one is Baptised.
TriuneUnity stance: Desire for the benefits of God are written in the human heart, and the desire itself begins at Baptism.

Does that sound about right to you?

Close. At Baptism, the selfish desire for the benefits give way to the desire simply for God as Creator, Father, Redeemer, Master, etc.

This seems related to the whole idea that we are in the “benefits seeking stage” rather than having any actual desire for God. Right?

Yes. The negative statements about man’s desire for God that I gave is for unbelieving man… That is, these are non-Christians we are talking about. Christians are a different case.

This is consistent with Catholic theology. I’m failing to see where you disagree with paragraph 29. It appears to me that you would answer these questions as follows:

Can God be forgotten? YES
Can God be overlooked? YES
Can God be explicitly rejected by man? YES

I suppose my disagreement is more with the wording. “Can” implies the “Can not.” That is why I said God is always forgotten, overlooked, and rejected by unregenerate man, in contrast to “can.”

This sounds Calvinistic to me. The ultimate conclusion is that anyone in the natural state will never have the intellectual capacity to chose Baptism because he is hopelessly trapped in the “natural man in the flesh” condition. It seems that the only recourse is God chosing to transform the individual independent of any choice by the individual to be saved.

That would be right. However, what it makes it non-Calvinistic is that the Calvinist approaches the topic with the presupposition that God not only chooses to save some sinners (election), He also chooses to damn others (reprobation, i.e., double-predestination). Scripture doesn’t teach this. When God’s word is preached, God is always offering His grace to the sinner.

As for not having the desire… the natural man will not have the desire until God places the desire within him. This would be done, again, through the means of grace. The word is preached, the sinner is converted/regenerated, they then desire Baptism, and so on.

The Catholic position still makes more sense to me: God calls us to be Baptised and because the desire for God is written in our hearts, we chose to be saved. But this saving action is prompted by God in the first place because he has written that desire in our hearts.

Choosing to be saved isn’t salvation. That is self-improvement. God chooses to save us. This touches more on soteriology than just the basics of desire for God. So we might want to leave those particulars for that topic, but that’s entirely up to you

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Close. At Baptism, the selfish desire for the benefits give way to the desire simply for God as Creator, Father, Redeemer, Master, etc.

Okay. I believe I now understand where you differ from Catholic theology. Thanks!

TriuneUnity:

Yes. The negative statements about man’s desire for God that I gave is for unbelieving man… That is, these are non-Christians we are talking about. Christians are a different case.

Likewise, I believe I understand where you differ from Catholic theology. Thanks!

TriuneUnity:

I suppose my disagreement is more with the wording. “Can” implies the “Can not.” That is why I said God is always forgotten, overlooked, and rejected by unregenerate man, in contrast to “can.”

It appears your objection to paragraph 29 has more to do with what it doesn’t say rather than what it does say.

TriuneUnity:

That would be right. However, what it makes it non-Calvinistic is that the Calvinist approaches the topic with the presupposition that God not only chooses to save some sinners (election), He also chooses to damn others (reprobation, i.e., double-predestination.

Choosing to be saved isn’t salvation. That is self-improvement. God chooses to save us. This touches more on soteriology than just the basics of desire for God. So we might want to leave those particulars for that topic, but that’s entirely up to you

I’d rather leave the soteriology to that portion of the catechism, but I’d like to explore at least a cursory look at it because it is related to the basic desire for God.

Here’s what I conclude from what we’ve discussed:

According to your view, prior to Baptism, we only have a desire for the benefits of God. The “normal” way we can be freed from this condition of only desiring the benefits of God is for the “Hound of Heaven” (Jesus) chasing us down to Baptise us, thus our desire for God is “born” in us at that moment not because of what we will but because of what God wills. Since no one is predestined for hell and no one can chose to be saved, the logical conclusion is that all will be Baptised by Christ and thus will be given the desire for God at some point during their life.

Does that sound like an accurate description?

---

I think the Catholic view can be summed up similar to how the fig tree in the Gospel is handled. The fig tree did not produce fruit - but it still had the desire to produce fruit. The mere desire to produce fruit doesn’t mean it actually will. The fig tree can be cultivated to see if it will produce fruit in the end. But if not, at that point it will be cut down.

 

[TriuneUnity]

According to your view, prior to Baptism, we only have a desire for the benefits of God. The “normal” way we can be freed from this condition of only desiring the benefits of God is for the “Hound of Heaven” (Jesus) chasing us down to Baptise us, thus our desire for God is “born” in us at that moment not because of what we will but because of what God wills. Since no one is predestined for hell and no one can chose to be saved, the logical conclusion is that all will be Baptised by Christ and thus will be given the desire for God at some point during their life.

Does that sound like an accurate description?

Not all will be baptized, since not all will be saved. Who is baptized, who perseveres and inherits eternal life… all of those questions revolving around predestination…we leave to the will of God. We simply say if man is saved it is entirely the work of God. If he is damned, it is entirely due to man’s rejection of God. There is a tension there that doesn’t resolve itself using logic. Scripture teaches both, so we simply accept the tension and don’t try to figure it out.

I would concur with the Canons of the Second Council of Orange in 529 on these points.

CANON 3. If anyone says that the grace of God can be conferred as a result of human prayer, but that it is not grace itself which makes us pray to God, he contradicts the prophet Isaiah, or the Apostle who says the same thing, “I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me” (Rom 10:20, quoting Isa. 65:1).

CANON 4. If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself who says through Solomon, “The will is prepared by the Lord” (Prov. 8:35, LXX), and the salutary word of the Apostle, “For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phil. 2:13).

CANON 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism-if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for blessed Paul says, “And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:6). And again, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8). For those who state that the faith by which we believe in God is natural make all who are separated from the Church of Christ by definition in some measure believers.

CANON 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, “What have you that you did not receive?” (1 Cor. 4:7), and, “But by the grace of God I am what I am” (1 Cor. 15:10).

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

…We simply say if man is saved it is entirely the work of God. If he is damned, it is entirely due to man’s rejection of God. There is a tension there that doesn’t resolve itself using logic. Scripture teaches both, so we simply accept the tension and don’t try to figure it out.

But Christian faith doesn’t defy logic. Perhaps a better way of expressing it would be to say that there is a tension there because it is a mystery which we perhaps do not fully grasp or understand.

 

[TriuneUnity]

But Christian faith doesn’t defy logic. Perhaps a better way of expressing it would be to say that there is a tension there because it is a mystery which we perhaps do not fully grasp or understand.

I would agree with that 100%. The problem is not logic. It’s perfectly logical. Our logic is just tainted, so if we try to subject that which is holy to it, it doesn’t make sense.

But yes, predestination/election is a mystery. It isn’t discussed in Scripture to be the answer to our rational questions. It’s meant to comfort Christians who are in despair and/or persecution that their salvation is in the hands of God and He will see that they persevere.

 

[Acolythus_sum]

Those of us who are Catholic…and thus in full communion with all that Holy Mother Church teaches…don’t we, by default, agree with these paragraphs?!?

 

[MelanieAnne]

Those of us who are Catholic…and thus in full communion with all that Holy Mother Church teaches…don’t we, by default, agree with these paragraphs?!?

Exactly!

A Catholic is not someone who picks and chooses this or that doctrine.

A Catholic is someone who believes all that is set forth as doctrine by the Church.

Someone who purports to be Catholic but distinguishes themselves as not believing some particular doctrine is NOT Catholic, by definition. No matter how much they may claim to be Catholic, if they do not believe ALL doctrine, they are NOT CATHOLIC.

There is no such thing as a “cafeteria Catholic”!

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Those of us who are Catholic…and thus in full communion with all that Holy Mother Church teaches…don’t we, by default, agree with these paragraphs?!?

Not necessarily.

To be in full communion is not the same as being in complete agreement. To be in full communion with the Catholic Church means that you accept what the Catholic Church teaches even if you may disagree with something that is being taught by it. Acceptance is not the same as agreement. There’s an element of humility involved in accepting teachings we may not fully agree with on a human level.

Regarding the Desire for God, I happen to not only accept what the Catholic Church teaches on the subject, I also am in complete agreement with what is stated regarding it in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

 

[Contarini]

O
I’d rather leave the soteriology to that portion of the catechism

The idea that you can “leave soteriology” until later points to a profound difference between your approach and that of Lutherans such as TriuneUnity. And while I think that Protestantism overemphasizes a certain set of individualistic soteriological questions, I share TriuneUnity’s unwillingness to bracket soteriology at this point in the discussion. Indeed, I’m not sure that the authors of the Catechism would share your assumption that this is possible. It seems to me that this portion of the Catechism is quite frankly soteriological.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I voted that I agreed fully with all the paragraphs. However, I have been wrestling for some time with Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s idea of “religionless Christianity,” which is most basically the rejection of the premise of this section, particularly Paragraph 27. Bonhoeffer suggests (tentatively and cryptically) that this desire for God (what he calls the “religious a priori”) may not be basic to human nature, and that perhaps our proclamation of the Gospel ought not to be based on the assumption that such a desire exists. I find Bonhoeffer’s argument challenging because I see all sorts of ways in which Christians water down the Gospel in order to appeal to what we assume are human needs and desires. Contrary to the common misunderstanding of his position. Bonhoeffer (as I read him) is arguing against, not for, a watering down of the Gospel to cater to the condition of modern people.

I think there are strong theological and philosophical reasons to agree with the Catechism. But I take Bonhoeffer’s challenge seriously.

Edwin

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

…Indeed, I’m not sure that the authors of the Catechism would share your assumption that this is possible. It seems to me that this portion of the Catechism is quite frankly soteriological.

I didn’t mean to imply that it wasn’t possible. In fact, my complete statement indicates that I was unwilling to ignore the soteriological aspect altogether (bolded for emphasis):

Stylteralmaldo:

I’d rather leave the soteriology to that portion of the catechism, but I’d like to explore at least a cursory look at it because it is related to the basic desire for God.

To clarify my thinking as to why “I’d rather leave the soteriology to that portion of the catechism” is that I’d rather the topic not drift too far from the main theme at hand: that being the Desire for God.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

…Bonhoeffer suggests (tentatively and cryptically) that this desire for God (what he calls the “religious a priori”) may not be basic to human nature, and that perhaps our proclamation of the Gospel ought not to be based on the assumption that such a desire exists.

That is an interesting observation. To exclude that desire however seems to me to indicate a more distant God rather than personal God who implants such desires.

Contarini:

I find Bonhoeffer’s argument challenging because I see all sorts of ways in which Christians water down the Gospel in order to appeal to what we assume are human needs and desires.

This might be tied into somewhat with what TriuneUnity was referring to our tainted logic. In this case: we logically tie in our desire for God as the reason for our proclamation of the Gospel.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I find Bonhoeffer’s argument challenging because I see all sorts of ways in which Christians water down the Gospel in order to appeal to what we assume are human needs and desires. Contrary to the common misunderstanding of his position. Bonhoeffer (as I read him) is arguing against, not for, a watering down of the Gospel to cater to the condition of modern people.

This is a huge problem. The modern Church, by and large, especially in evangelicalism, but it really crosses denominational lines, uses the seeker sensitive model in evangelism. God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life. You can have everything you have now, only better, because you’ll have Jesus.

This is a huge problem, if, as the Bible describes, no one seeks for God. It’s hard to appeal to seeker when there are no seekers.

I think there are strong theological and philosophical reasons to agree with the Catechism. But I take Bonhoeffer’s challenge seriously.

Edwin

FWIW, I don’t disagree with the statements of the catechism as much as I disagree with certain emphases and wrong assumptions about human nature that are contained within the statements.