Apologists Concerned About Rick Warren's Alignment With 'Holy Father'

Charisma News ^ | 12/3/14 | Mark Andrews

[caww]

......”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.

[vladimir998]

“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.

[nicmarlo]

Good post

[caww]

....."What's left? Let me guess, they'll tell us eating Him is worshiping Him".....

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!

[af_vet_1981]

Convince me. I agree there is an underlying Hebrew idiom. It occurs in a number of places. But I don't think it means what you appear to think it means:

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.

What To Me And To You?

Posted By MSH on April 25, 2012

While doing some reverse interlinear work a few days ago, I came across Josh 15:18. The verse concerns Caleb’s newly-won bride: 18 When she came to him, she urged him to ask her father for a field. And she got off her donkey, and Caleb said to her, �What do you want?�

My interest was drawn to the question: “What do you want?” The Hebrew literally reads: “What to you?” This is a fairly common Semiticism that I have run across a number of times before. And each time the idea pops into my head that I ought to write an article on it — since it is the idiomatic expression behind the statement/question Jesus says to his mother Mary in John 2:4. Jesus says, literally, “What to me and to you, O woman?” (“woman” is in the vocative case for direct address.)� Many readers mistake the question as a statement of irritation on Jesus’ part, and some translations don’t do much to avoid that misapprehension. In Josh 15, Caleb is portrayed as wanting to be kind to his new bride. He is not irritated; he wants to do something for her to make her happy. This is the pretty clearly the case in some of the other 18 occurrences of the precise phrase found in Josh 15:18. Some examples (to my eye anyway) are: 2 Sam 14:5; 1 Kings 1:16; Esther 5:3. My point is that the phrase is at times clearly a gentle one.

The similar phrase (“What to me?”) also occurs in the Hebrew Bible, at times in combination with “to you,” as in John 2:4. The most generic way to capture what the full statement (“What to me to you?”) means is “what is there that concerns me and you?”� Context should steer the translator to word choices that move the translation from this neutral meaning to something that captures the situation, whether it is adversarial or congenial.

There is no reason to see John’s use of this idiomatic expression as indicative of irritation, or that his mother had become insufferable to Jesus. When Jesus says to Mary, “What to me to you?”, he isn’t saying “What is it now, lady?” He’s basically asking his mother, who brings a concern to him, “What can I do for you?”

Anyway, just a bit of a hobby-horse issue for me that I periodically run into. On to weightier things.

[LadyDoc]

There is no reason to see John’s use of this idiomatic expression as indicative of irritation, or that his mother had become insufferable to Jesus. When Jesus says to Mary, “What to me to you?”, he isn’t saying “What is it now, lady?” He’s basically asking his mother, who brings a concern to him, “What can I do for you?

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.

:>)

[Mrs. Don-o]

Me: "He done prayer he gave us ..."

Yea'm, Ah guess He done give us dat prayer....

Sorry--- that was a typo. It was supposed to read,

"The one prayer He gave us..."

Tagline...

[metmom]

Show me where a prayer in Scripture is to be directed to anyone but God by believers.

[metmom]

Are you not familiar with what Scripture refers to as "disputable matters"?

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.

[boatbums]

If the rationalization for permitting abortion is it is okay prior to the baby taking his first breath or for being able to survive outside his mother's womb, we should consider the following:

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.

[Kandy Atz]

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.

[boatbums]

“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.

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:

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.

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.

[boatbums]

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.

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"?

[Springfield Reformer]

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.

Yep, the same Michael Heiser who doesn't need a literal Adam:

That is, I don’t 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."

Having said that, a person can be a radical theological liberal and still be very good at languages.  MH certainly has outstanding credentials.  I believe His teaching on the Divine Council, where he postulates a class of true deities that are created beings but not angelic beings, is an intriguing idea, but again not one that rests well with the idea of Scripture presenting a unified expression of the mind of God.  He accepts some form of inspiration, but does not appear to be restricted by the need for inspired Scripture to be consistent.  As for example in Isaiah, where God denies there are other gods besides Himself, MH would apparently allow Psalm 82 ("ye are gods") to contradict that, and his approach accepts that as a reflection of the influence of near eastern polytheism on the Biblical writers, and that's just dandy with him.  At least that's how I've understood what I've researched so far on his positions. Needless to say, his wink to polytheism has made him very popular with Mormons. But for me it leaves his credibility as a trustworthy exegete very much in doubt.

In any event, I have reviewed his argument concerning Mary and Jesus at Cana and found it to be flippant and shallow.  He does not even address the four passages I showed you that clearly do use the idiom "what to you to me" in an adversative sense.  

But even more interesting is this line from the article you linked (and Kandy Atz this is for you too):

There is no reason to see John’s 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.  

Furthermore, in this particular case, trying to convert the expression in question into "how can I help you," as MH suggests is possible, wrenches statement of Jesus into two incoherent and pathologically disconnected pieces.  Under this theory, in the first clause, He is asking "how can I help you," and in the second He is saying it isn't time yet. Time for what?  Time to help her?  But the theory is He just said He would help.  It makes no sense.  The exact timing of various aspects of Jesus' ministry was a major issue:

John 7:30  Then they sought to take him: but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come.

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.

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.

What I'm getting at here is this is a major theme of John's Gospel, the steadfastness of Jesus in keeping to His mission.  Even when He was twelve years old, He chides His parents for not realizing He had to get on with His Father's business.  To have it pop up as the other half of a offer of helping out with the wine is completely incongruous. Even MH suggests that an adversarial sense can be inferred if the context suggests it, and here the context suggests it.  

Bottom line, I respect credentials as much as they're worth, but no more.  My dad was in education, and in dealing with gifted children on a regular basis, he concluded that even a really high intellect couldn't compensate for a failure to do the work.  MH admits in the last lines of the article this is a bit of lightweight fluff he's been thinking about, and it's obvious he hasn't given it serious thought at all, let alone anything like a scholarly treatment. He has used comparison passages for his argument that upon inspection do NOT contain the phrase in question, only bare stumps of the interrogatory "what." He has overlooked a distinct pattern of usage in those passages that DO contain the exact expression, and he doesn't even mention a critical hint in the context of John 2, Jesus' timing objection.  He has furthermore extrapolated most of his sense from a more primitive and incomplete form of the idiom, without noticing that the more compete form of the idiom has no congenial representative, only adversarial.  At least as far as I have found.

This is significant because if the speaker wanted to put both parties on the same side of the table, there are first person plural constructs in Hebrew, and they would make more sense to use where there is no division of purpose between the parties.  This suggests that when the two different pronouns are used (you versus me), it is precisely because a distinction in purpose is being made between the two parties.  This is consistent with the expression appearing exclusively as adversarial when both pronouns are present.

Please be aware that I do not have any theological need for this to be a rebuke.  My beliefs about Mary are based on the total Biblical data, and would be unaffected by whether this is a congenial or adversarial usage.  But I do use the Biblical Hebrew, and the Greek, and this does look like a rebuke to me.

Peace,

SR

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for posting here, dear sister in Christ! Your research, analysis and demeanor are exemplary.

[terycarl]

What's left? Let me guess, they'll tell us eating Him is worshiping Him.

oh ye of little faith....how sad to see a Catholic deny the Eucharist....He gave it to you and you reject Him!!

[terycarl]

Good post

compared to what???

[Iscool]

If the rationalization for permitting abortion is it is okay prior to the baby taking his first breath or for being able to survive outside his mother's womb, we should consider the following:

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...

[Springfield Reformer]

Thank you for your very kind words.

BTW, I am your brother in Christ. :)

Peace,

SR

[Alamo-Girl]

LOLOL! Sorry about that!