Posted on 12/10/2014 6:32:20 AM PST by marshmallow
"Christian unity" is one of those terms that stir up a whole spectrum ofsometimes emotionalopinions.
On the one hand, we know that Jesus prayed to the Father concerning future believers "that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you" (John 17:21a, NIV).
On the other hand, charismatics know it is almost pointless to discuss the gifts of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12, 14) with Baptists or most anyone else from a mainline denomination. And Protestants of just about any stripe get riled up when they hear Catholics talking about papal infallibility or their adoration of the Virgin Mary.
It's on this latter point that Rick Warren, senior pastor of Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California, and successful author, has waded into a hornet's nest of controversy by telling a Catholic News Service interviewer that Protestants and Catholics "have far more in common than what divides us" and that Catholics do not "worship Mary like she's another god."
Regarding Warren's view that Catholics do not worship Mary, Matt Slick, writing on the website of the Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry, goes into great detail with material from Roman Catholic sources that say Mary is "the all holy one," is to be prayed to, worshipped, that she "brings us the gifts of eternal life" and she "made atonement for the sins of man."
If that's not putting her in the place of Christ as a god-like figure to be worshipped, then what is it?
"We believe in Trinity, the Bible, the resurrection, and that salvation is through Jesus Christ. These are the big issues," Warren says. "But the most important thing is if you love Jesus, we're on the same team."
To Warren's point about being on the same team, Slick.....
(Excerpt) Read more at charismanews.com ...
......”We worship Jesus Christ, really and substantially present -— Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity-— under the forms of bread and wine.”.....
That is your choice and by design/creation of Rome....
However,....
Christians worship Jesus Christ by and through His Holy Spirit who indwells them personally. It through this relationship we lift of the name Of Jesus in our services and magnify His Holy and Great name of all names.
“Are you not familiar with what Scripture refers to as “disputable matters”?”
Yes, and this isn’t one of them. Think about it. Disposition of souls and the proper way to use scripture to understand doctrine: those are not “disputable matters”. They are not unimportant.
“So, sorry, Vlad, as much as you seem to relish the thought that disputable matters trashes the authority of Holy Scripture, you are proven wrong once again BY Holy Scripture.”
So, sorry, boatbums, as much as you seem to relish the thought of passing off criticism of sola scriptura as the trashing of the authority of Holy Scripture, you are proven wrong again and again. Not only does Holy Scriptutre NEVER teach sola scriptura, but I have never trashed the authority of Holy Scripture.
Good post
Which of course keeps them from knowing Jesus because they get all wrapped up in the false feelings they get doing that because they "believe in that ritual".
No different then the Benny Hinn type shows....just without all the glitz. It's still group hypnosis, if they believe it, and the enemy of mens souls loves to enrapture people with feelings to establish his lies. (It must be "real" because I feel it!)
This Priest actually performed the catholic mass on top of a corpse...go figure!
Unless you use Hebrew I don't think my language arguments will convince you how simple this is. I'm no longer welcome to post the naked scriptures to feed the Gentiles, so perhaps one of your own is a better witness in any case.
some people rejoice in the idea that Jesus dissed his mom in public, but as Scott Hahn points out: if he had dissed his good Baptist mom that way, she would have decked him.
Sounds about right to me.
:>)
Yea'm, Ah guess He done give us dat prayer....
Sorry--- that was a typo. It was supposed to read,
Tagline...
Show me where a prayer in Scripture is to be directed to anyone but God by believers.
Catholics as a whole completely ignore that EVERY time it's brought up.
You might as well post blank white space for the reaction it gets out of them. They just don't want to hear it because then they have NOTHING with which to criticize and condemn SS over.
When God created the first human being (Adam), He breathed into him the breath of life and he became a living being/soul. No such "breathing into" happened when God created Eve, yet she also was a living human soul. The act of breathing "air" is not what makes the human life a living soul. This is why ALL innocent human life is precious and does not hinge on when someone decides that life has a "soul" yet or not.
From the moment of fertilization (when the sperm joins to the egg) the organism that is formed IS human life and the process begins. EVERYTHING that is needed - except for a safe environment, time and nourishment - for that fertilized egg to form a new human person is present AT THAT moment. All the DNA is there so that the cells are formed that individually work to develop every organ including the placenta, even to the timing of the birth. It is truly a miraculous thing.
Abortion, and methods of "birth control" that destroy that human life - whether as a primary or secondary act - is taking the life of a human being that has a right to life. Yes, killing a fetus/young one (which is what the Latin word means) is a sin against God. We should all be working to see an end to this barbarity as it not only destroys innocent human life it slowly destroys the people and nations that permit it.
I definitely never read John 2 as Jesus being irritated with Mary - God is Love. It reminds me somewhat of other incidents in his ministry, the Syrophoenician woman comes to mind.
Mary first brought the problem to her son. But what she needed to do was release her faith to her Lord. When she told the servants to do what Jesus says, that was an expression of faith, a confidence that Jesus would act, an assurance of things hoped for (Hebrews 11:1). When Mary changed her tune, Jesus acted, in spite of saying it wasn’t yet his time. When the Syrophoenician woman stopped begging, and expressed determined confidence in Jesus, she got her miracle.
Hebrews 11:6 (KJV)
6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Mark 11:22-23 (KJV)
22 And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.
23 For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.
The "proper" way to use Scripture to understand doctrine is certainly indisputable, it carries the understanding that Scripture IS our authority because it is God's word revealed to us. Specifics about the "disposition of souls" can be disputable matters when Scripture isn't precise enough to warrant a black or white answer. Case in point, Catholics differ on what "Purgatory" is - where it is, how long it lasts, is there or is there not suffering, etc.. Is this not something concerning dispositions of souls? At one time, Catholicism taught a place called "Limbo" existed and said the souls of unbaptized babies went there. Now, they don't teach that anymore. Is that not also dealing with the disposition of souls? If you can allow for differences among fellow Catholics and not be concluding them in heresy or apostasy because they may not agree with what you believe, why is it not also something non-Catholic Christians can do? Like I already said, Elsie and I have discussed our differences and agree to disagree. Let's not forget that this was only brought up because you insisted nobody ever dared challenge his views on the topic because it was more important to present a unified face. Will you admit you were wrong about that?
So, sorry, boatbums, as much as you seem to relish the thought of passing off criticism of sola scriptura as the trashing of the authority of Holy Scripture, you are proven wrong again and again. Not only does Holy Scriptutre NEVER teach sola scriptura, but I have never trashed the authority of Holy Scripture.
Do you deny you impugned sola Scriptura on the basis that non-Catholics could disagree on non-essentials? If you truly do accept the authority of Scripture, then you should also accept that it is our primary rule of faith specifically because it, alone, is God-breathed, Holy Spirit inspired writing. Roman Catholicism places Holy Scripture along side tradition and the magesterium as equally authoritative. Yet we have the writings of the early church fathers that say Scripture MUST be the judge of truth and is the sole and final arbiter of truth because it is infallible and the ultimate authority. Irenaeus, in his Against Heresies stated:
Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life.
I don't see how anyone can honestly deny that Scripture certainly DOES proclaim, because it is inspired by God, it is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work (II Tim. 3:16). I don't see anything man can devise that competes with THAT authority.
Oh, you poor thing! Who told you that? Because you were asked to provide book/chapter/verse when you posted Scripture, that means you aren't welcome to post? And what is "naked Scriptures"?
That is, I dont need a single real-time event involving an original human couple to know with theological certainty that all humans are mortal, that all humans sin, and that all humans are totally helpless to remedy either problem.
See it in full context at: http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2012/06/evolution-adam-additional-thoughts/So no, he's got this and several other elements in his writing which suggest he is something of a theological liberal, so I would not consider MH to be "one of my own."
There is no reason to see Johns use of this idiomatic expression as indicative of irritation, or that his mother had become insufferable to Jesus.I hope MH doesn't think that's what is meant by "rebuke." I hope the same for you. A good rebuke can be offered, not out of a basis of personal aggravation or frustration, but out of a sense of love and correction, as a good parent will rebuke a child for the child's sake, and not for their own comfort. People with the best intentions can wander off into erroneous thinking, and a rebuke becomes necessary.
John 7:30 Then they sought to take him: but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come.So Jesus is not raising some trivial objection that would be in keeping with some favorable offer of help. The whole of Jesus' life was on God's time table. There were events that had to happen and they had to happen at the right time. Recall Jesus also had to severely rebuke Peter for suggesting Jesus should avoid putting Himself in danger by going to Jerusalem.
John 8:20 These words spake Jesus in the treasury, as he taught in the temple: and no man laid hands on him; for his hour was not yet come.
Thank you so much for posting here, dear sister in Christ! Your research, analysis and demeanor are exemplary.
oh ye of little faith....how sad to see a Catholic deny the Eucharist....He gave it to you and you reject Him!!
compared to what???
I certainly didn't say there was a rationalization for abortion at any time...
When God created the first human being (Adam), He breathed into him the breath of life and he became a living being/soul. No such "breathing into" happened when God created Eve, yet she also was a living human soul.
Perhaps it just didn't need to be mentioned since the standard was set with Adam...But unlike Adam and Eve, the baby is alive in the womb...The question for me then would be, is the life coming from the soul of the baby or the soul of the mother??? I would say it is the mother...I guess that is scientifically known since cutting the umbilical cord while the baby is in the womb would result in the death of the baby...The baby's soul doesn't provide life for the body of the baby until it gets that breath of fresh air...
From the moment of fertilization (when the sperm joins to the egg) the organism that is formed IS human life and the process begins. EVERYTHING that is needed - except for a safe environment, time and nourishment - for that fertilized egg to form a new human person is present AT THAT moment. All the DNA is there so that the cells are formed that individually work to develop every organ including the placenta, even to the timing of the birth. It is truly a miraculous thing.
I of course agree with all of that yet I realize that a fetus/baby doesn't use it lungs in that process...The lungs are filled with fluid...
The lungs on the baby do not operate until they are exposed to air...And why they start to function on their own at that time, I really have no idea...The baby takes it very first breath...I can only attribute that to a heavenly mystery...
When Adam breathed in air, he became a 'living' soul...
BTW, I am your brother in Christ. :)
Peace,
SR
LOLOL! Sorry about that!
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.