Guile

[djames99]

Ref: 12apostlesofthecatholicchurch.com/bartholomew.html

  *Jesus could forget this cautious discipline's judgment against Nazareth and his prejudice against the Messias Himself. As He saw Nathanael coming, joyfully He could say, "'Behold a true Israelite in whom there is no guile. '" St. Augustine made the remark about this passage: ""A great testimony! That which was said neither to Andrew nor to Peter nor to Philip was said of Nathanael. How highly the Jews esteemed the honor of being an Israelite is easily seen in St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans and in his second Epistle to the Corinthians.

Still when our Lord greeted Nathanael, He did not say this disciple was merely an Iaraelite. He stressed that He was an Israelite without guile. It was not often that an Israelite received such praise. Even Jacob, the father of the tribe of Israelite, was no more than a man "without guile." Frankness and sincerity had ceased to be universal virtues of the Israelites; nevertheless, Nathanael was a simple and candid person. He did not act as others and pretend. He did not have "two-hearts, a fold in his heart where he saw the truth, and another fold where he engendered lies.

 Here is an attribute that calls for study in the scriptural context.

 We have scriptural characters who are destined to be free from original sin, then we

have characters who are without guile. If Christ says someone has no guile, that is
pretty much a statement of permanent condition, a limititation on what satan can influence, otherwise his words may come to haunt him. This is what I found curious. The fallout of this observation leaves me trying to frame how a person without guile could ever find any of God’s tests taxing.

 Can anything Christ says be taken off the cuff, of incidental interest. Can he never be taken "off the record". In a leisure moment the "microphones" are burning for information that impacts man.

 We can accept that Christ recognizes the positive in people, but we need to remember the potential for hell doesn't exist for him either. If he knows the positives and points out individuals who fit, therefore should some also know the negatives? Wouldn't Judas have benefited by an early on, eye to eye, in your face, statement such as "you are full of guile". And yes, I'm aware of the great Deposit that is available and we are to work through, but this statement take it is outside of main stream parameters that we are all encumbered with. It changed the rules and playing field. 

 Is there a deliberate mechanism involved in both? The reason I ask is that Jesus seems to have no surprise, or perhaps no expectation that Nathanial would "coincidentally" be a good selection as a candidate for apostle. There is no reservation in his acceptance of him, as if Nathaniel *were free from negative influencing factors that makes him different from the majority*. We would all wish we were a recipe for a Nathaniel, a clean counter of proper child upbringing, just a sprinkling of a proneness to simple venial sin, with a dash of exactly the right jovial personality type, and a precise measure of spiritual assistance, resulting is a Nathaniel just fit for the job.

 Perhaps Jesus allowed himself some Divine liberty away from the clutches of chance

which preys upon human nature. If your submitting yourself to this sacrifice, why not have the enjoyment of assured company?

 If such a rock solid statement isn't delving into predestination, what is it then?.

 Am I reading something that's not in this?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

 Am I reading something that's not in this?

Pretty much, yeah. Your entire thought is based on “no guile” being a permanent state. Of course, this is completely wrong. It was his state at the time and, due to his nature, would likely remain his state; however, he, like any of us, could have chosen to doing something that would have stripped him of his “guileless” state. Even Jesus could have, at any point of his choosing, abandoned his perfect state; he had free will, and it would have been completely within his power to do so.

 

[Abbigaelann]

You’ve raised some interesting points that don’t seem to all tie together. Essentially you are thinking that ‘without guile’ makes the assertion of predestination? Or a snap reading of the person?

As far as Christ not having a clue about hell…catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2012/03/is-christs-descent-into-hell-biblical.html is an interesting argument. which will also go to, a question of was there foreshadowing in any, way, shape, or form of the thief going to be in Paradise with Christ? No alluding to a previous view of predestination for this man?

 

[djames99]

You’ve raised some interesting points that don’t seem to all tie together. Essentially you are thinking that ‘without guile’ makes the assertion of predestination? Or a snap reading of the person?

As far as Christ not having a clue about hell…

No. I’m saying hell is not a risk for “God”/Christ. ie: He could never merit it.

*Essentially you are thinking that ‘without guile’ makes the assertion of predestination? Or a snap reading of the person?
*

Yes. But in other ways I suppose we receive our “right on” confirmation after a sincere confession and receipt of absolution. At such a moment in time we are absolutely predestined for our proper place. So we can also claim ancestry with Nathaniel in this way. It all makes sense eventually.

 

[Abbigaelann]

If one goes totally with the idea of predestination, then what is the sense of a ‘judgment day’? And what reason for idiots to behave if someone has led them to think they are automatically going to heaven or to hell? Why is there penance, reconciliation, grace? Sheol is often equated with hell…where did Christ spend his time between dying on the cross and the resurrection? Matthew 12:40, 2 Peter 2:4, Revelation 1:18
Thus, verily, and so God can’t change His ‘mind’? There are no exceptions? When we learn that with Love, all things are possible and for every rule there are exceptions, like healing on the sabbath?

As if there can be no alteration and one can’t mess it all up? Then what is the sense of Free Will? of choice? Love remains, love endures…but what is the criteria for who’s love, other than heavenly, will survive?

But, if we get too intent on any subject, we lose sight of the Love, don’t we? What is priority 1?