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 of—sometimes emotional—opinions.
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 ...
And the reason for that is based on SCRIPTURE.
Changing the title that the Holy Spirit gave Mary is the wrong way to do it.
I think you misunderstood that post you are responding to. I am NOT a Catholic and do NOT believe that Jesus build His ekklesia on a fallible human.
Wow, what a lesson in revisionist history.
Show us the Greek texts that demonstrate that the Holy Spirit used the word theos and not Iesou.
John 2:1 On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there.
John 2:3 When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.”
Acts 1:14 All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.
Here are links to the ones showing that the word *Jesus* is from the Greek *Iesou*. You need to brush up on your history.
John 2:1 http://biblehub.com/text/john/2-1.htm
John 2:3 http://biblehub.com/text/john/2-3.htm
Acts 1:14
OKAY>.I must have hit wrong reply button..
My apologies.
NO problem. Been there done that.
With faith 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 23 And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed. For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 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. 5If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. 6But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. 7For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord. 8A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.
The Catholic Church totally corrupted the meaning of ekklesia and katholikos.
I have an opinion, too, and my opinion is I prefer the much older term "Theotokos." It's older than "Mother of Christ" (a term also found nowhere in the Gospel) and a little narrower in scope, more precise than "Mother of God."
Just like I prefer the olde, far richer and more Biblical "Kecharitomene" to the tepid, vague "highly favored" or whatever.
However, there's no overriding prohibition against developing terms which defend true doctrines of the Faith.
That's why the Church has words like "Trinity" and "Incarnation." Which you accept, I think?
I never said the title *mother of Christ* was found anywhere in Scripture.
The title *mother of God* is not older than *mother of Jesus*.
The Holy Spirit inspired two different writers of the NT to use the term *mother of Jesus*.
See post 1483
The Catholic church changed it hundreds of years later at the Council of Ephesus by their own admission.
I don’t see where the work of the Holy Spirit is lacking that He needs to be or needed to be corrected in the words He chose to use when He inspired, breathed out, Scripture for us.
We will never change the minds of some here. It’s only those who read these threads who the Holy Spirit is trying to reach and whose eyes He opens that will see the truth.
My premise is believing the LORD Jesus Christ, who built the holy catholic apostolic church on the Jewish apostles and prophets, Himself being the chief cornerstone. He gave Peter and the apostles the power of binding and loosing, already an established Jewish concept, and gave Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven. He promised the gates of hell would not prevail against this holy catholic apostolic church. I've asked any and all to give me the name of their denomination, sect, faith group, or cult that they believe is a visible and historic alternative to the Catholic churches. My conclusion is that most do not believe their group meets this criteria, or for some other reason they are unwilling to propose it. Catholics believe they are in communion with an unbroken chain to bishops appointed by the Jewish apostles unto this day that has spread to the four corners of the earth.
You did say that Jesus was God thus Mary is the mother of God. You don’t allow for any human nature in that at all.
vlad, it was I that posted it to you...the sentence you make fun of in your inane repetitions of it. Not Syncro.
Carry on.
I wouldn't know about them. Obviously you would consider them as you do Palosi, Kennedy, and Biden. Of course that is unless you are double minded.
>>So what if they decided to assemble? The rot is still present whether it is of a corporate or individual nature.<<
That's what Peter said was the responsibility of the individual to address with that person, then if they didn't listen to take another with, then if they didn't listen to bring it to the ekklesia (the assembly or group that meets together). If they didn't listen to the group then the group would not allow that person to meet with them. It's all in scripture.
>>The only nightmare present is the protestant who acts like an Occupy Wall Streeter with their prejudice against organization.<<
No sit ins or occupying going on. But when Catholics come around and stick their religion in our nose claiming we should join them we point out the errors.
That should have been "Was Jesus human nature divine or God"? Your ignoring the original poster is cute but rather juvenile.
There is no "holy catholic apostolic church" found in scripture. It's a made up construct by the Catholic Church.
“You did say that Jesus was God thus Mary is the mother of God. You don’t allow for any human nature in that at all.”
Your conclusion is completely false. The fact that Jesus IS God does not preclude His possession of human nature. You have given out this completely erroneous conclusion now at least twice and yet I have never once said anything that could possible lead any rational person to that conclusion. In my conversation with you on this topic I have said:
#1442: “Jesus was fully human (except for sin). Why would you ever suggest that the incarnation of Jesus was a fraud?”
#1342: “And Jesus is ONE in Himself even though He has two natures (divine and human).”
So, with those COMPLETELY UNAMBIGUOUS STATEMENTS that Christ is a man - “Jesus was fully human,” and “human” how can you possibly conclude, “You don’t allow for any human nature in that at all.”
“To Protestantism False Witness is the principle of propagation.” (John Henry Newman, Lecture 4. True Testimony Insufficient for the Protestant View)
“vlad, it was I that posted it to you...the sentence you make fun of in your inane repetitions of it. Not Syncro.”
I know.
“Carry on.”
Oh, I will.
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.