Posted on 12/03/2014 10:23:22 AM PST by NKP_Vet
In a new video, megachurch leader and author Rick Warren is calling for Christians to unite with Roman Catholics and “Pope Francis,” who Warren recently referred to as the “Holy Father”—a move that is raising concerns among Christians nationwide and is resulting in calls for Warren to repent.
Warren made the comments following his visit to the Vatican last month, where he spoke at an interfaith conference on the “Complementarity of Man and Woman.”
“We have far more in common than what divides us,” he said in the two-minute video released by the Catholic News Service on Wednesday, described as being an outline for “an ecumenical vision for Catholics and Protestants to work together to defend the sanctity of life, sex and marriage.”
“They would all say, ‘We believe in the Trinity; we believe in the Bible; we believe in the resurrection; we believe in salvation through Jesus Christ,” Warren asserted, speaking of the various denominations within Christianity, of which he included Roman Catholicism. “These are the big issues.”
The author of the bestselling book “The Purpose Driven Life” then sought to defend Catholics from those who take issue with the practice of seeking the intercession of Mary and the various deceased persons that have been sainted by the Vatican.
“Sometimes protestants think that Catholics worship Mary like she’s another god, but that’s not exactly Catholic doctrine,” Warren contended. “People say, ‘What are the saints all about? Why are you praying to the saints?’ And when you understand what they mean by what they’re saying, there’s a whole lot more commonality [that we have with Roman Catholics].”
“There’s still real differences—no doubt about that,” Warren stated. “But the most important thing is, if you love Jesus, we’re on the same team.”
He closed by speaking of his belief that Christians and Catholics serve as co-laborers for the cause of defending life and family.
“When it comes to the family, we are co-workers in the field in this for the protection of the sanctity of life, the sanctity of sex and the sanctity of marriage,” Warren said. “So, there’s a great commonality and there’s no division on any of those three.”
But Warren’s comments have raised concern from Christian leaders nationwide, who are now calling the Saddleback leader to repentance. Matt Slick of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM) repudiated each of Warren’s points.
“Sure, there are Catholics who love the real Christ, the one who died on the cross for our sins. That is not the problem,” he said. “The problem is the Roman Catholic Church’s false teachings concerning Mary and salvation.”
“Rick Warren says both the Catholics and the Protestants believe in the Bible. But, there is a significant difference between the Bible of the Protestants and the Roman Catholic Church, which has added seven books,” Slick wrote. “[T]here are numerous problems in the apocryphal books, such as the teaching of salvation by works [and] the offering of money for the sins of the dead.”
“Warren implies that both Protestants and Catholics have the same view of salvation,” he continued. “Though it’s technically correct to say that Catholics believe in salvation through Jesus Christ, they reject justification by faith alone in Christ alone. Instead, it teaches that good works of various kinds are necessary for salvation.”
The Christian apologist then pointed to several Roman Catholic teachings on Mary, mainly from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), such as that Mary “by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation” and that “[b]y asking Mary to pray for us, we acknowledge ourselves to be poor sinners and we address ourselves to the ‘Mother of Mercy,’ the All-Holy One.”
“Rick Warren has not only failed to recognize the problems in these serious areas, but he has lent his credibility as a Protestant pastor in support of the Roman Catholic Church,” Slick wrote. “This should never be done by any Protestant pastor who takes the Bible seriously. I must conclude that Mr. Warren does not take the word of God seriously and/or he does not understand the damnable teachings of Roman Catholicism regarding salvation.”
“Rick Warren needs to repent,” he said.
Please read Matt 5:22 over again. Think hard about this. Violating a clear, direct command of Jesus Christ is no light matter.
“But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.”
...to his brother...
I am about out of time for today, so this will not be an in depth reply.
‘Hand me the relay baton; as I am just going on duty this morning.’
Elsie, that was a most remarkable post. I read every single word. Wow. Very enlightening, and simply fascinating. Someone went to a lot of work to put all that together. Thank you for making it available on this thread. I really appreciate it.
[Note: Never imagined I’d see the Apostle Peter referred to as ‘Rocky’—and by Augustine, no less. That is not something I will forget any time soon!]
Hi again. I didn’t post yesterday because I spent my entire posting time reading up on Boniface viii. Really fascinating info, but extremely time consuming. I learned so much. I am working, at least in my mind, on a major post to you. It may not, with God’s help, materialize in posting form until tomorrow. Or perhaps, Lord willing, I can manage it later tonight.
Just please don’t think I’m blowing this conversation off. I realized yesterday that it was essential to know more about the Pope that issued the ex cathedra pronouncement that got our whole exchange started. The research was well worth the effort, despite the amount of time required.
We can legalistically wrangle about that. Should we go with the spirit or the letter of the command? When Jesus defined ‘neighbor’ He painted with a broad brush. But those intent on saying to others, ‘You fool,’ will likely find a loophole. Me, I am taking no chances. The repercussions are way too serious, and from the very mouth of Jesus Christ at that.
Bottom line, no thanks; the only time I use the expression ‘you fool,’ is when one or another of my dogs does something extraordinarily stupid. Otherwise, the words do not leave my lips or my keyboard. Better safe than sorry.
Thank you for pinging me to that extremely informative and pertinent post. I hung on every word. Your research is amazing. It just never occurred to me that there was more to the Boniface viii pronouncement than was already posted. The context is crucial. When, with God’s help, I am able to make a more significant contribution to this discussion, your input will be invaluable. Thanks again.
Indeed, as is taking away from His words or adding to them to make them say what obviously is not the case. And in the case below, making this a blanket condemnation against all invectives would make the Lord, John the baptizer, and Paul, just for 3, into committing sin. For if you think "fool" qualifies as a unlawful attribution, how about,
Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold? (Matthew 23:17)
when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? (Matthew 3:7)
Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? (Matthew 23:33)
Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law? (Acts 23:3)
“But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.
In context it is referring to unjust anger and its expressions, and in no way censures all such language any more than the preceding verse condemns all killing;
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: (Mat 5:21)
In the KJV 5:22 it says
But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. (Mat 5:22)
The "without a cause" is missing in so-called "better manuscripts," which are considered better under the premise that older are better, but the later mss could well be more accurate copies of even old mss which wore out.
Someone debating this in a CARM forum stated,
I did the research (BibleWorks 9.0; Logos 5) to identify which early mss had εἰκῆis (without cause) or not.
"Without cause" is not in Sinaticus A, but is in Sinaticus B. The entire verse is missing in Sinaticus C, D.
"Without cause" is not in Alexandrius, but that is because the entire verse is missing in all three mss A,B,C.
"Without cause" isn't in Vaticanus A, but the entire verse is missing in B,C,D! [he labels all the above as corrupt texts]
"Without cause" is in the Sadihica Egyptian Greek Text as well as the Aramaic Peshitta.
"Without cause" is in the Old Syriac Curetonian as well as the Old Syriac Sinaiticus.
"Without cause" is in quotes of Matthew 5:22 in the Early Church Fathers Irenaeus and Commodianus:
the man also who is angry with his brother without a cause- Irenaeus of Lyons. (1885). Irenæus against Heresies. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, p. 408). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature
not angry with thy devout brother without a cause-Commodianus, The Instructions LXXX, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol IV, page 218.
Cyprian, in his Epistle LIV, doesn't have "Without cause" but then he omits most of the verse, giving only a summary of it.
the Lord says in His Gospel, “Whosoever shall say to his brother, Thou fool; and whosoever shall say, Raca, shall be in danger of the Gehenna of fire,”-Cyprian of Carthage. (1886). The Epistles of Cyprian. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), R. E. Wallis (Trans.), Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix (Vol. 5, p. 340). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.
Another commenter here writes,
In the newer versions, “without a cause” is missing in the older MSS and so the teaching, if isolated, becomes a blanket prohibition against anger and that there is no cause or reason for anger that is justifiable. As we know, the Bible is full of places where the anger of the Lord was kindled. So, we know that no all anger is sinful – such as the Lord’s righteous indignation. So, this passage makes it unclear about that and could possibly cause confusion if a person is not knowledgeable about how to study the scriptures deeper to find out more about the subject. “Without a cause” is really a disclaimer or a “qualifying” clause that makes the teaching more clear. Some may argue that the words were not in the originals, but they really don’t know that either. So, to be safe I would go with the KJV and NKJV reading.
Just a couple of further thoughts. There have been quite a few high profile atheists who subsequently came to Christ. I’m thinking specifically of C. S. Lewis and Josh McDowell. I don’t know about McDowell, but I have read any number of books by and about Lewis. Nowhere is it mentioned that Christians were in the habit of saying to him, ‘You fool’ while he was still an atheist.
I have a twofold question on this issue. First, if Christians *had* done that, would it have made it more or less likely that Lewis would come to faith in Christ? I cannot speak for Lewis, but I can speak for myself. When people insult me, they put distance between me and whatever they represent. In short, I don’t like being insulted to my face. If, for example, a person is pushing a certain political candidate, and they call me a fool for not being on that bandwagon, it doesn’t entice me to hop on; it incentivizes me to stay off.
The second point is related to the first. Namely, how does saying to a person, ‘You fool’ harmonize with the Golden Rule? If saying to people, ‘You fool’ were a tried and true method of winning them to Christ, that would be one thing. But it seems off-putting at best. So how could it possibly be in keeping with the Golden Rule? Since most of us don’t appreciate broad, sweeping insults, should we really be in the habit of applying such insults to others?
[Note: yes, indeed God does say, ‘The fool has said in his heart there is no God.’ No question about it; it’s in Scripture. Otoh, it’s nowhere in Scripture recommended as an evangelical approach. Rather, Paul said he became all things to all men, that he might win more. Of course, he never became an atheist to win atheists. But the context implies he would approach them on a level they could understand, rather than simply insulting them to their face.]
It wasn't me!
I don't remember where I stole it from; but since EACH quote was sourced independently; I figured it was ok to use.
(Pssst.... we get any CATHOLICs commenting on it yet??)
Go with spirit, and you end up with Catholicism.
Go with letter, and we end up with Pharisees.
"Do not go beyond what is written" is still good advice after all these centuries.
In a previous post I agreed that it is entirely within God’s province to call a fool a fool. But I don’t agree with any explanation that negates a clear command of the Lord Jesus Christ. He prohibits saying to a brother ‘You fool.’ If you believe that only applies to cases of unjust anger, what can anyone say to you? For me, it is a command of Jesus, and I would never, ever, risk His wrath by disobeying.
Plus, I never have cause to say to anyone’s face, ‘You fool.’ Showing the love of Jesus Christ takes precedence over labeling others a fool. I read the following in the 5th chapter of Galatians, and it inclines me to find kinder, gentler and more patient words to use in such situations:
13 For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14 For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 15 But if you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another.
16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. 17 For the flesh [g]sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you [h]please. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. 19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: [i]immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, [j]factions, 21 envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. 24 Now those who [k]belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
Going with the spirit of Jesus’ commands never brought me anywhere near Catholicism.
What is written is all I am talking about. Nothing more, nothing less.
bump
The Catholics didn’t ADD any books, the Protestants removed them.
I have read but not studied some of these books and agree with “These books were never authoritative, inspired, or authentically written by either the Jewish Prophets or the Christian Apostles”
The Jews did not accept these books and I have to say that tells me something.
These books were always “separate” and debatable. They were always in “question” unlike other books which were accepted from the beginning. The Roman Catholic Church for 500 years did not recognize them but finally recognized them in 1546 in response to the Reformation? I find that interesting. Were they wrong the first 500 years or the next 1500 years?
They mostly remind me of the Gnostic heresies. They have secret knowledge but I found no spiritual growth in them. If you have found some spiritual growth in them I would be gladly corrected.
Now don’t get me wrong, I am not a Catholic basher. I think the church whether catholic or protestant is off course and in need of repentance.................
Take a look at the Chapters 2 and 3 of Revelation. The condemnation and correction is UNIVERSAL.
I think Josh McDowell originally set out to disprove Christianity, but when confronted with the evidence, well, he got it, and wrote Evidence that Demands a Verdict.
It’s not just a difference of theology. This is akin to asking Christians to unite with Muslims, or Buddhists, or Hindus, or any other false teachings out there.
No, they are not the same, that’s like saying Mormons are Christians, or JWs etc.
Then you ignored or simply dismissed what i just showed you, which negates your objection. For your premise is that it is a command of Jesus never to call one a fool, yet as i showed you, the Lord did so Himself, and says to follow Him, and the apostles did as much to others, while this is no more a blanket injunction than "thou shalt not kill" is in the previous verse.
And thus the "qualifying" without cause" is warranted, for as in the case of killing, the Lord is referencing the Law, which makes provision for killing, and as with the use of invectives, it supports it. (Rm. 13:1-7)
I order to maintain your objection then you must show this is a unequivocal prohibition, which you cannot do, while Scripture shows it is not.
Plus, I never have cause to say to anyone’s face, ‘You fool.’ Showing the love of Jesus Christ takes precedence over labeling others a fool.
Then you have not only charged Christ with disobeying His own command, but have charged Him with being unloving, since He called a group of people "fools and blind." For "Open rebuke is better than secret love."(Proverbs 27:5)
And not only Him, but all men of God in the Scriptures who did what Paul exampled and commanded in certain cases,
One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; (Titus 1:12-13)
But if you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another.
That, in context, is carnal attacks which are not driven by a love for God and His holiness, nd hatred of the flesh, the world and the devil, and love for the well-being of others which sometimes requires sharp rebuke (the Lord said some churches made Him want to spit out them of His mouth), like as misbehavior can sometimes require spanking children by he same hands that hug.
May i ask when where you born again and realized the profound changes of regeneration in heart and life?
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.