Does any human ever knowingly and willingly reject God?

[OneSheep]

Good questions, certainly. I am not sure there is enough detail in the text to answer them all, but I agree, it is an interesting investigation.

I often use this verse when debating with monergists. Calvanists believe that God rejenerates whoever He wills, without their consent. If that is the case, then how can anyone truly knowingly and willingly reject His purpose for themselves?

The baptism of John was not meant to be regenerational, but for repentance. That means that accepting it was an act of faith, and not necessarily transformational in itself, as we believe Christian baptism is.

So, the baptism of John was a sign of repentance on the part of the individual, and the Pharisees had not repented, which from my understanding means that they were still caught up in being served rather than serving (first will be first), the hierarchy of “holiness”, the assertion of law being more important than people. Life as the knew and liked it, status, etc. was caught up in the “system” so to speak. Please clarify/correct this evaluation.

There is the other question, too, just as important. What were the Pharisees and lawyers rejecting, in their minds?

Thanks!

 

[pocaracas]

Not off-topic at all simpleas! Yes, wouldn’t it be nice to be constantly aware of the “eye” shown in so much Christian art (a loving eye, hopefully). Yet, we do not have this constant awareness, only that whch we have in prayer. In the mean time, even if Christ is our center, we are subject to automatic blindness.

Is God watching with that “threat of hell”, though? Or is God watching with open arms, like that of the prodigal son’s father? Depends on the individual, as you know…

That eye… reminds me of this eye
http://www.ew.com/sites/default/fil.../i/2014/12/10/Eye-of-Sauron.jpg?itok=QB7ehKYf

 

[simpleas]

Not off-topic at all simpleas! Yes, wouldn’t it be nice to be constantly aware of the “eye” shown in so much Christian art (a loving eye, hopefully). Yet, we do not have this constant awareness, only that whch we have in prayer. In the mean time, even if Christ is our center, we are subject to automatic blindness.

Is God watching with that “threat of hell”, though? Or is God watching with open arms, like that of the prodigal son’s father? Depends on the individual, as you know…

If Christ is our center we are not blind anymore, but can see. Who can see with the mind of Christ? The church has the mind of Christ, yet there is so much blindness…

 

[OneSheep]

If Christ is our center we are not blind anymore, but can see. Who can see with the mind of Christ? The church has the mind of Christ, yet there is so much blindness…

Well, you have higher expectations, maybe? Yes, with Christ as our center, blindness can be revealed. These things take time, in my experience. A Christ-centered person may still carry grudges her whole life without really being aware. Denial is such a powerful thing, it is that goings-on in the subconscious, “surely, I do not hate”, where a person cannot bear to admit their hatred and therefore never deals with it. It is a self-protective blindess. Remember, all blindness serves a purpose.

As humans, we can be blinded, no matter how holy we are. Blindness happens, and it happens for a good reason.

Do you know someone who can never be blind? It seems to me that even the most prayerful person is going to experience the triggered response.

 

[simpleas]

Well, you have higher expectations, maybe? Yes, with Christ as our center, blindness can be revealed. These things take time, in my experience. A Christ-centered person may still carry grudges her whole life without really being aware. Denial is such a powerful thing, it is that goings-on in the subconscious, “surely, I do not hate”, where a person cannot bear to admit their hatred and therefore never deals with it. It is a self-protective blindess. Remember, all blindness serves a purpose.

As humans, we can be blinded, no matter how holy we are. Blindness happens, and it happens for a good reason.

Do you know someone who can never be blind? It seems to me that even the most prayerful person is going to experience the triggered response.

Thanks.

With you I think I can see where you are coming from in your approach to others. You seem to have patience and have come to a knowledge that with experience in life we can get to a level of seeing, although not perfect, to answer your question, I don’t know anyone who isn’t blind in some way, although I knew a sister who had the greatest patience I ever saw a person show, and was a loving person to everyone.
I was looking at a website the other day of a person who has written books and is a conservative Catholic. He has made a list of who should not be allowed to do activities in the church, the whole, who is included and who should not be included.
His expectations are way, way above mine, but I don’t understand this sort of Catholicism of the in group/ out group. I know we have “rules” and to a degree expectations of each other within our faith, but when people go almost out of their way to exclude certain types of other people, because they don’t live up to their expectations, I don’t see Jesus’ teaching there at all.
Jesus ate, drank, spoke to others who were sinners, I don’t recall him saying they needed to be free from sin before they could sit with him, he didn’t insist they stop what they were doing first that was sinful, before he would speak to them. He welcomed them, probably knowing it could take time for them to see.
The guy I was reading about, what he believes, sounded like you need to be free from sin before you could enter the church!

Thanks

 

[Sacred_Heart_1]

From a homily at St.Peter’s Basilica, by Fr. Raniero Cantalmessa:

Yet God’s measure of justice is different from ours and if he sees good faith or blameless ignorance he saves even those who had been anxious to fight him in their lives. We believers should prepare ourselves for surprises in this regard.

vatican.va/liturgical_year/holy-week/2009/documents/holy-week_homily-fr-cantalamessa_20090410_en.html

However, has any person been “anxious to fight him” knowingly and willingly? I am looking for an example of this. Ignorance is a huge, if not essential, part of human sin. Can such ignorance be understood and forgiven, or are there instances when a person can indeed be condemned?

Note: I am using “knowingly and willingly” in the broadest sense, i.e. those who crucified Jesus did not do so knowingly and willingly. They “willed” it in terms of choice, but their choice was in ignorance (and in this case, the ignorance was held blameless).

Feel free to make an assertion in your answer, but please provide an example.

Thanks!

Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is an example.

 

[OneSheep]

Thanks.

With you I think I can see where you are coming from in your approach to others. You seem to have patience and have come to a knowledge that with experience in life we can get to a level of seeing, although not perfect, to answer your question, I don’t know anyone who isn’t blind in some way, although I knew a sister who had the greatest patience I ever saw a person show, and was a loving person to everyone.

Hi Simpleas

Well, when I think about it, perhaps we are all blind in one way or another, but we cannot see it in ourselves or each other. Remember, I look at blindness as a temporary state. What I am saying is that even the most devout, prayerful person can become automatically blinded. Perhaps the more prayerful she is, the more quickly she can realize that such blindness has happened, and then through forgiveness of others, letting go of desire, etc (repentance), again see the truth. She has become “recentered”. She may even be completely free of blindness after the renewal. Lack of blindness, though, does not make us all-knowing, of course. We all (no exceptions) have our own lack of awareness/ignorance hampering us. but we learn more every day!

I was looking at a website the other day of a person who has written books and is a conservative Catholic. He has made a list of who should not be allowed to do activities in the church, the whole, who is included and who should not be included.
His expectations are way, way above mine, but I don’t understand this sort of Catholicism of the in group/ out group. I know we have “rules” and to a degree expectations of each other within our faith, but when people go almost out of their way to exclude certain types of other people, because they don’t live up to their expectations, I don’t see Jesus’ teaching there at all.
Jesus ate, drank, spoke to others who were sinners, I don’t recall him saying they needed to be free from sin before they could sit with him, he didn’t insist they stop what they were doing first that was sinful, before he would speak to them. He welcomed them, probably knowing it could take time for them to see.
The guy I was reading about, what he believes, sounded like you need to be free from sin before you could enter the church!

Thanks

I can understand where he is coming from. It is hard to proclaim the “good news” as a community, for example, if there are people in the congregation who are persecuting others or setting a really bad example of what it means to be Christian. On the other hand, like you said, Jesus ate with all of them. What seems a bit more contrary to the gospel is for someone to exlude sincere believers who happen to have different opinions on certain issues. We don’t have to exclude people; we can just talk to them.

Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[OneSheep]

Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is an example.

Hello, Sarcred Heart.

Yes, you have put forth an example to investigate. The question of the thread can be specified to the situation, "Does any human ever knowinginly and willingly blaspheme the Holy Spirit? Keep in mind that I am using the word (knowingy) to include all relevant information. I am using the word “willingly” to address will, intent. goal, etc.

So, does any human ever K&W blaspheme the Holy Spirit? If so, please give an example of such blasphemy, and we can investigate furthere.

Thanks!

 

[guanophore]

Hello, Sarcred Heart.

Yes, you have put forth an example to investigate. The question of the thread can be specified to the situation, "Does any human ever knowinginly and willingly blaspheme the Holy Spirit? Keep in mind that I am using the word (knowingy) to include all relevant information. I am using the word “willingly” to address will, intent. goal, etc.

So, does any human ever K&W blaspheme the Holy Spirit? If so, please give an example of such blasphemy, and we can investigate furthere.

Thanks!

Do you think the Pharisees who rejected the Baptism of John were just ignorant, or were they resistant to the Holy Spirit?

Scripture states that they rejected the purpose of God for themselves.

 

[OneSheep]

Do you think the Pharisees who rejected the Baptism of John were just ignorant, or were they resistant to the Holy Spirit?

Scripture states that they rejected the purpose of God for themselves.

Good Morning!

Well, as Helen Rose accurately pointed out, we don’t know for sure, so all that we can do is invent scenarios that meet the criteria of “human”, and then investigate them. We can start with the most troubling, of course, the ones that give all the appearance of a knowing and willing rejection.

I am still thinking that concerning the Pharisees that it is important to clarify what they thought they were rejecting. Venture a guess, guanophore, there is no harm in guessing for the investigation. Give them the benefit of the doubt, give them the worst of the doubt, or pick something in between. Try to pick an answer that leads to a conclusion of knowingly and willingly rejecting, for that is what we are trying to discern.

What (who?), in their eyes, were they rejecting?

Note: I don’t want to be “pushy” with this question. I am thinking that you may have overlooked my last response to you. If you think that there is a better question to clarify, feel free to offer one!

Thanks!

Oh, maybe you gave your answer, and I need more clarification. What does “rejecting the purpose of God for themselves” mean?

 

[guanophore]

Welcome, guanophore!

A new example to investigate! Thank you so much, I really appreciate you bringing this one forward, for I am sure to learn a few things from this.

First of all, if you don’t mind, can we determine what was actually happening there? For example, what were the Pharisees and lawyers rejecting, in their minds? And then, how did “not having been baptized by John” specifically effect their rejection?

Please do not see the tone of those questions as challenging anything, as they are meant to simply clarify what happened.

God Bless you, and thank you so much!

Note: please be patient with my lateness, I have a lot of work lately.

Luke 7 contains several accounts of healing, including the Centurions’ servant, the raising of the widow’s son in Nain, followed by Jesus response to the messengers from John.

"In that hour he cured many of diseases and plagues and evil spirits, and on many that were blind he bestowed sight. 22 And he answered them, “Go and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have good news preached to them. 23 And blessed is he who takes no offense at me.”

The Pharisees and Lawyers were not pursuaded by the miracles, or by the baptism of John for repentance. They were the ones who took offense at Christ. Refusing the baptism of John was an act of hubris, from those who did not believe they needed humility, forgiveness or cleansing.

They were rejecting what they saw as a false prophet, a fraud. Jesus describes them:

31 “To what then shall I compare the men of this generation, and what are they like? 32 They are like children sitting in the market place and calling to one another,

‘We piped to you, and you did not dance;
we wailed, and you did not weep.’

33 For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine; and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ 34 The Son of man has come eating and drinking; and you say, ‘Behold, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ 35 Yet wisdom is justified by all her children.”

John and Jesus did not fit into their preconceived notions of Messiah.

 

[guanophore]

I am still thinking that concerning the Pharisees that it is important to clarify what they thought they were rejecting. Venture a guess, guanophore, there is no harm in guessing for the investigation. Give them the benefit of the doubt, give them the worst of the doubt, or pick something in between. Try to pick an answer that leads to a conclusion of knowingly and willingly rejecting, for that is what we are trying to discern.

What (who?), in their eyes, were they rejecting?

What does “rejecting the purpose of God for themselves” mean?

1 Tim 2: "This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. "

Jesus called all men to be saved and come tot eh knowledge of the Truth. He is the Truth, and the Pharisees and Lawyers rejected His purpose for themselves.

 

[OneSheep]

Luke 7 contains several accounts of healing, including the Centurions’ servant, the raising of the widow’s son in Nain, followed by Jesus response to the messengers from John.

"In that hour he cured many of diseases and plagues and evil spirits, and on many that were blind he bestowed sight. 22 And he answered them, “Go and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have good news preached to them. 23 And blessed is he who takes no offense at me.”

The Pharisees and Lawyers were not pursuaded by the miracles, or by the baptism of John for repentance. They were the ones who took offense at Christ. Refusing the baptism of John was an act of hubris, from those who did not believe they needed humility, forgiveness or cleansing.

They were rejecting what they saw as a false prophet, a fraud. Jesus describes them:

31 “To what then shall I compare the men of this generation, and what are they like? 32 They are like children sitting in the market place and calling to one another,

‘We piped to you, and you did not dance;
we wailed, and you did not weep.’

33 For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine; and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ 34 The Son of man has come eating and drinking; and you say, ‘Behold, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ 35 Yet wisdom is justified by all her children.”

John and Jesus did not fit into their preconceived notions of Messiah.

Yes, they saw Jesus as a false prophet. They were blind to the possibility that the Messiah would call the first to be last, the ones who wash feet, the servant of others, to be first in God’s eyes. Their own status, their place in the hierarchy, the powers to forgive, so much threatened by this “ridiculous” version of what the Messiah was to be.

So, when the human feels threatened, they experience an automatic blindness toward the offender. Subconsciously, Jesus was dehumanized in their minds, worthless, a fraud, expendable. This happens to all of us when we perceive a threat, right? It is a natural human response. It is not an act of reason, though we may find “reasons” to justify the gut-level response. Their minds were compromised by feelings of resentment.

And so it was with those who hung Jesus on the cross, right? They, too, were blinded by resentment, and did not know what they were doing. They perceived a fraud, a blasphemer.

As I said, I am defining “knowingly” as being cognizant of all relevant information, and “willingly” as what is intended at the deepest level. The way I see it, the Pharisees and allies did not “will” to reject God at all, they willed to reject a fraud. The did not “know” Jesus was the Son, they knew Him as an impertinent radical. Indeed, they probably saw rejection of Jesus as exactly what God was calling them to do.

Feel free to use a different definition of “knowingly and willingly” to show that the Pharisees truly knew what they were doing, as I do not have the “rights” to the definitions! But do you see my train of thought guanophore? Also, please feel free to offer a counterpoint, as there may be something I am missing.

Thanks!

 

[guanophore]

Yes, they saw Jesus as a false prophet. They were blind to the possibility that the Messiah would call the first to be last, the ones who wash feet, the servant of others, to be first in God’s eyes. Their own status, their place in the hierarchy, the powers to forgive, so much threatened by this “ridiculous” version of what the Messiah was to be.

So, when the human feels threatened, they experience an automatic blindness toward the offender. Subconsciously, Jesus was dehumanized in their minds, worthless, a fraud, expendable. This happens to all of us when we perceive a threat, right? It is a natural human response. It is not an act of reason, though we may find “reasons” to justify the gut-level response. Their minds were compromised by feelings of resentment.

And so it was with those who hung Jesus on the cross, right? They, too, were blinded by resentment, and did not know what they were doing. They perceived a fraud, a blasphemer.

As I said, I am defining “knowingly” as being cognizant of all relevant information, and “willingly” as what is intended at the deepest level. The way I see it, the Pharisees and allies did not “will” to reject God at all, they willed to reject a fraud. The did not “know” Jesus was the Son, they knew Him as an impertinent radical. Indeed, they probably saw rejection of Jesus as exactly what God was calling them to do.

Feel free to use a different definition of “knowingly and willingly” to show that the Pharisees truly knew what they were doing, as I do not have the “rights” to the definitions! But do you see my train of thought guanophore? Also, please feel free to offer a counterpoint, as there may be something I am missing.

Thanks!

I do see your point, but Jesus was clear with them. He TOLD them it is because you say you can see that your blindness does not excuse you. Blind guides he called them. What it boils down to is whether or not we believe what the Apostles’ taught. Either He gives everyone sufficient grace and revelation to choose, or not.

If He calls, and the Truth is revealed, and it is rejected because of a hard heart, or preconceived notions, or whatever the reason, it is still a consious “willingly and knowingly” rejection. No one, even those disciples who accepted Jesus, knew the fullness of the revelation. They did not understand much of what he said and did, but they took a step in faith, humbled themselves, and embraced the invitation. All are called, few are chosen.

 

[simpleas]

Hi Simpleas

Well, when I think about it, perhaps we are all blind in one way or another, but we cannot see it in ourselves or each other. Remember, I look at blindness as a temporary state. What I am saying is that even the most devout, prayerful person can become automatically blinded. Perhaps the more prayerful she is, the more quickly she can realize that such blindness has happened, and then through forgiveness of others, letting go of desire, etc (repentance), again see the truth. She has become “recentered”. She may even be completely free of blindness after the renewal. Lack of blindness, though, does not make us all-knowing, of course. We all (no exceptions) have our own lack of awareness/ignorance hampering us. but we learn more every day!

I can understand where he is coming from. It is hard to proclaim the “good news” as a kcommunity, for example, if there are people in the congregation who are persecuting others or setting a really bad example of what it means to be Christian. On the other hand, like you said, Jesus ate with all of them. What seems a bit more contrary to the gospel is for someone to exlude sincere believers who happen to have different opinions on certain issues. We don’t have to exclude people; we can just talk to them.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Yes you could just talk to them, but if they don’t think they fit in with the in group then they won’t even be there to talk to. If no one preaches exclusion of any kind then I think we can work through our faults and still feel part of the community of the church.
I can understand why people move away from any religion, seeking to be with like minded people, we all do. This wouldn’t be K&WRG to me, more like a stage in that persons life, seek and you shall find, one doesn’t always have the same gifts as an other as I think we all can agree.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning, guanophore, and happy Thanksgiving!

I wrote out a long response, addressing each of the points in your post, but I decided to focus, which is very difficult for me to do. I would be happy to PM you my response to the rest of your thoughtful post.

I can summarize a little my response to what you said about the Pharisees being “blind guides”. Yes, blindness does not “excuse” anyone from consequence, and all hurtful action has its own natural consequence. In the case of the Pharisees, their blindness led to an enslavement to power and status, and enslavement is not freedom nor is it the “perfection” we are called to. However, blindness, in itself, does not demonstrate “knowingly”, unless one uses a different definition of “blindness”, right? The Pharisees were truly blind, but thought that they were not.

guanophore:

If He calls, and the Truth is revealed, and it is rejected because of a hard heart, or preconceived notions, or whatever the reason, it is still a consious “willingly and knowingly” rejection

.

Thanks! We have new examples here, or perhaps an extension, a deeper look at the same example. Is hardness of heart, or preconceived notions, a knowing and willing rejection of God?

First of all, what is a “hard heart”? Is it resistance to repentance?

And then, let’s take a close look at “preconceived notions”. Can you give an example of such a notion, or would you like me to provide one?

Thank you, guanophore! It is really great to interact with you on all of this; I really appreciate your responses!

 

[OneSheep]

Yes you could just talk to them, but if they don’t think they fit in with the in group then they won’t even be there to talk to. If no one preaches exclusion of any kind then I think we can work through our faults and still feel part of the community of the church.
I can understand why people move away from any religion, seeking to be with like minded people, we all do. This wouldn’t be K&WRG to me, more like a stage in that persons life, seek and you shall find, one doesn’t always have the same gifts as an other as I think we all can agree.

Yes, we need to welcome, to invite! The last diocesan session I went to had this message: The ministry of hospitality is our FIRST MINISTRY, and it is to be everyone’s ministry! So true, it is so Christ-like to be welcoming.

Yes, if people do not find like-mindedness in their community, they often look elsewhere, which is a shame! A welcoming community should not be restricted to like-mindedness. However, if a person gets more of a sense of belonging by being around those who are like-minded, it is hard to make them feel welcome. Indeed, they
can be self-excluding, right, rejecting a community. But yes, they do not do so “knowingly and willingly” rejecting God; it is that they are not seeing God as clearly in the community they reject.

Thanks.

 

[simpleas]

Yes, we need to welcome, to invite! The last diocesan session I went to had this message: The ministry of hospitality is our FIRST MINISTRY, and it is to be everyone’s ministry! So true, it is so Christ-like to be welcoming.

Yes, if people do not find like-mindedness in their community, they often look elsewhere, which is a shame! A welcoming community should not be restricted to like-mindedness. However, if a person gets more of a sense of belonging by being around those who are like-minded, it is hard to make them feel welcome. Indeed, they
can be self-excluding, right, rejecting a community. But yes, they do not do so “knowingly and willingly” rejecting God; it is that they are not seeing God as clearly in the community they reject.

Thanks.

Yeah, at the end of the day we are all sinners, even the ones who think they are “holier than thou”
On my side of the world our diocese is to close half of our parishes we have many small communities, not enough people attending Mass each weekend. Apparently we are ok for Priests, just not enough Church goers.

:sad_bye:

 

[HabemusFrancis]

Yes. They do.

In that they reject God and his works, and the things who go with him.

I am not utterly convinced even the atheists like Hitchens and Dawkins did so. They may have had a side to them that was kind and charitable. Say what you will about Hitchens, he displayed a deep empathy for the Kurdish victims of Saddam Hussein’s genocide, as well as other humanitarian causes.

I get the sense the atheists hate a false version of God, or a sense of God that was taught to them, not God Himself. Phillip Pullman gets a lot of flack ( and in some ways rightly so) for writing books about killing God. Yet the God of his Dark Materials is not the God of Christianity, and I get the sense Pulllman just had a deeply misconstrued and false notion of what God and the Church were all about.

It seems to be thrrough ones actions, and attitude toward God and their fellow man that one fully and completly rejects God.

It almsot makes Hell make sense to me. That as horrible as Hell is, it is infinitely preferable to the Damned than being in God’s presnece who they have (sometimes implicitly) sneered at and rejected all their life. If they sneered at and rejected him in life, why would it be any diffferent in death?

 

[guanophore]

Good Morning, guanophore, and happy Thanksgiving!

I wrote out a long response, addressing each of the points in your post, but I decided to focus, which is very difficult for me to do. I would be happy to PM you my response to the rest of your thoughtful post.

I can summarize a little my response to what you said about the Pharisees being “blind guides”. Yes, blindness does not “excuse” anyone from consequence, and all hurtful action has its own natural consequence. In the case of the Pharisees, their blindness led to an enslavement to power and status, and enslavement is not freedom nor is it the “perfection” we are called to. However, blindness, in itself, does not demonstrate “knowingly”, unless one uses a different definition of “blindness”, right? The Pharisees were truly blind, but thought that they were not.

.

Thanks! We have new examples here, or perhaps an extension, a deeper look at the same example. Is hardness of heart, or preconceived notions, a knowing and willing rejection of God?

First of all, what is a “hard heart”? Is it resistance to repentance?

And then, let’s take a close look at “preconceived notions”. Can you give an example of such a notion, or would you like me to provide one?

Thank you, guanophore! It is really great to interact with you on all of this; I really appreciate your responses!

I think that the Pharisees rejected Jesus in part because of their preconceived notions of who the Messiah would be. He did not fit their concept, so they rejected Him. That was not all there was to it, as you say, they were enamored of power as well.

In Romans, Paul writes that what can be known about God has been made plain through His creation. Honestly, I don’t know how anyone can look at the natural universe and not see the hand of God. But perhaps it just seems that way for me because I already believe God created it?