Uh...
...a brave PROTestant?
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 ...
Oh, you mean Nancy Pelosi / Ted Kennedy / John Kerry / Joe Biden?
Uh...
...a brave PROTestant?
Absolutely, John. And Isaiah and Abraham and Joseph and David....there’s the “Hall of Fame,” in Hebrews...that list :)
Amen and Amen!
I hope y'all have a blessed Christmas!
Amen. The goal is so others may know and understand His Word, His Truth, His Way, so that none may perish. The time is short because Christ's return is near. God holds our very breath in His hands, and so we only have today, regardless, to make a difference in planting seeds so that others may come to know Him as their Savior.
May you also have a blessed Christmas, boatbums (and Alamo-Girl).
Yes, do you know of any? Since Protestants won’t ask you about “sleep” in the Bible, or about whether or not any souls are now in Heaven, or if Paradise is Heaven, there doesn’t seem to be many on the Protestant side of things here.
I don’t expect that to change. The formal but deceptive lock-step uniformity of Protestant anti-Catholics must be maintained after all.
LOL, metmom! I love you, but I'm not taking that away from Jesus!
If you can show me where Jesus said not to love anybody but Him, I will officially leave whatever religion it is you are.
I never said that someone ever saw the Father. I said that in the OT sometimes God appeared as “visions or manifestations”. Clearly of other things, “like the hiring bush for example”. But not the Father Himself. I never said that.
In Gen 3:8-9 it’s easy to read too much into the word “walking” but really the word to focus on there (as far as any manifestation of God goes) is the word “voice”. Why? Because it says “voice of the Lord God walking in the garden”. As it’s “plainly written” there the “logical” conclusion to make is that the voice of God “walked” in the Garden. But this makes no sense.
This is if we read it with just the English language in mind though. It makes more sense when we realize the word for “walking” there is “hithpael” (transliterated) which means here, in Gen 3:8, “to traverse, to walk about” or “to go for oneself” or “to walk up and down”. See here : http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H1980&t=KJV
So we can see that in this verse the verb is not meant to be taken literally, as if the voice of God had two legs and was walking about. It’s meant to be taken as simply the voice of God moved through the Garden. This is truly the “plain reading”, not what you suggest. Otherwise, the Jews would have been worshipping a visible incarnate God long before Christ. Not to mention that if there were multiple incarnations of Christ the one we are familiar with would at least be diminished in meaning.
There was and is only one Incarnation of Christ, who was and is fully man and fully God. If you are saying that in Gen 3:8-9 God was fully man then too, then this goes against 2,000 years of Christian teaching. It was clearly some manifestation of the one God in Gen 3:8-9, but not fully Man. But, believe what you want.
Don’t say though, as many other non Catholics here do when a Catholic dares disagree with their interpretation of Scripture, that you “are just quoting the Word of God” and thus by implication I’m not.
No, you are giving your interpretation of the Word. Don’t conflate that with the actual Word. It’s beneath you.
Well, let's see them. Do you have examples? Post them and let's discuss them.
No more than it bothers the RCs here that there are practicing RCs, whom I have as relatives, that actively practice abortion. The standard RC rationalization is to deploy the No True Scotsman fallacy, "they are not true Catholics," but no such defense works for us poor Prots when we get an outlier because the double standard is deemed acceptable. Oh well.
But really this is projection of a Roman theory of authority onto a belief system that explicitly embraces a decentralized power structure. Of course that's always going to fail the Roman test. This is why I've always been somewhat bemused by the persistent effort at creating denominational pigeon-holes.
It's sort of like asking the Patriots coach why he isn't using the Tampa Bay playback, and then recoiling in shock when the coach says he's not the Tampa Bay coach and wouldn't want to be anyway.
If you have a clearly defined notion of church defined for you by the church you've already chosen, its begging the question to impose that model on other models. They aren't going to match. So what? The premise that the RC model is the right model is the very premise that can't be proven simply by assuming its true and then trying to impose it on everyone else. That's not a sound form of argument.
But I understand the attraction to making such an assumption. It becomes unnecessary to find any sort of authority that might arbitrate between the two models. Logically, how can you compare two things objectively without having a meta-standard that sits above them both? True, to use such a standard one has no choice but to be honest about the difficulty of the interpretive process. Like figuring out what the Constitution really says. But how do you get out of it? You don't. It is what it is. Happily, the elect are not on their own, but have the promise of God's help. But who knows what the rest will come up with.
As for references for Scripture, the Masoretic point system isn't inspired either, but the translations uniformly rely on it. There is actually a place in Isaiah where the KJV handles a Messianic prophecy better because apparently they disregard the pointing. My point is (pun intended) there's nothing wrong with using advances in textual apparatus if the teacher and the student can distinguish between tools and text. I know of no one who regards the versification as inspired. Certainly no one here. And it is nearly universal that such aids are used in any serious inquiry to make all parties accountable for fair use of the text. I don't see the problem with using such aids. They contribute to the general peace and comity. Certainly on law review I would not be able to cite statutory data without providing location. Just sayin ...
Peace,
SR
Does that "Love" include praying to metmom? And does it include making statues of her? Does it include dedicating yourself totally to her?
Praying? Yes. I communicate with her almost daily.
Making statues of her? I'm not a sculptor, but here's some pixels in her honor:
Dedicate myself totally to her? Well, I certainly would if the only command command she ever gave me was, "Do whatever He tells you."
Word twisting is so transparent.
>>"Do whatever He tells you."<<
Please show where Jesus ever told anyone to make statues of Mary.
"Please show where Jesus ever told anyone to make statues of Mary."
That's silly. It is not necessary to show that Jesus said to make statues of Mary, any more than it is necessary to show He told anyone to make statues of the Pilgrim Fathers or of Evangelical missionaries.
Or Bibles, crosses, churches, pews, tracts, hymnals, baptismal tanks tubs or fonts, wedding rings, veils, caskets, tombstones, calendars, websites or pings.
Do you believe that "That which is not commanded is forbidden"? I hope not, because it is a repugnant, Orwellian, un-Biblical and un-Christian idea.
No but reversing a commandment surely would be needed for making statues that you use in worship. There was a direct command by God to not bow down to statues. As also there was a distinct command to not eat blood which was reinforced in the New Testament.
Sadly, the evidence suggests that many are unaware of the ministry of the Holy Spirit.
Quench not the Spirit. - I Th 9:15
May God bless you both this Christmas!
I never said you did.
I said that in the OT sometimes God appeared as “visions or manifestations”. Clearly of other things, “like the hiring bush for example”. But not the Father Himself. I never said that.
I agree with you, at times the Father did manifest Himself in various ways. But again, I never said you said the Father did Himself.
My words about the Father to which you refer are merely excerpts from the basis upon which I used to study the Scripture, allow the Holy Spirit to guide my understanding, as I came to the conclusion that it was the pre-Incarnate Christ who appeared in the Garden to Adam and Eve as the Lord God.
God is the God of logic and there are often times when studying the Scriptures requires logic to reach logical conclusions (and I was sharing some of mine with you so you would not be wondering where I 'came up' with my statement).
In Gen 3:8-9 it’s easy to read too much into the word “walking” but really the word to focus on there (as far as any manifestation of God goes) is the word “voice”. Why? Because it says “voice of the Lord God walking in the garden”.
No, it says: "And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden."
It's not the voice, it's the actions. They were likely acquainted with regular 'walks of the Lord God in the Garden', except this time, it is THEY who hid themselves, not the Lord God. Why would they hide themselves from a voice unless they believed the Lord God was approaching? They heard Him walking. That means, they heard footsteps
Secondly, and more to the point, why did they hide themselves THIS TIME? Because they sinned. The Lord God, the pre-incarnate Christ, knew where they were physically, yet He asked, "Where Are You"? This dual meaning was mostly as to their spiritual state. Another answer He knew, but He wanted them to figure that out, now, too.
Disbelieving that the God of the Universe, Christ the Creator, who appeared to mankind through a virgin birth some 4000 years later, could not and would not appear to His perfect creatures prior to The Fall, given that the Word plainly says, "they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden," is what is illogical. Thinking that Christ who created Adam and Eve so He could have a relationship with them, then not appear, but only appeared to sinful man who rebelled against Him 4,000 years later, makes no sense.
If you are saying that in Gen 3:8-9 God was fully man then too, then this goes against 2,000 years of Christian teaching
"Fully Man"? Aren't those your words (again)?
Yes.
I don't put Christ into a box of limitations. He is fully God and can take on the attributes of a physical body in the form of a man, or could appear as an Angel, or some other form, as He chooses and when He chooses.
Don’t say though, as many other non Catholics here do when a Catholic dares disagree with their interpretation of Scripture, that you “are just quoting the Word of God” and thus by implication I’m not.
Here's the thing: you are entitled to your opinion, have at it, but not your own facts, nor using your own words and attributing them to me.
If and when your opinion, church doctrine or dogma, the Pope, a preacher, an evangelist, contradicts the Word of God, then I am free to point out the contradiction, as I have and will continue.
you are giving your interpretation of the Word. Don’t conflate that with the actual Word. It’s beneath you
I have been blessed to have been studying the Word of God now for over 40 years under Godly and knowledgeable pastors recognized nationally and world wide, as well as tutors and mentors only known to my locale, but who are as strong in their understanding Scripture of any. Their respected opinions and leadership have helped bring me to my Spiritual maturity, along with the Holy Spirit, of course.
It's beneath you to attempt to make it appear as though I fabricate what is opinion versus what is in the text. I do not do such things and do not need to do such things; I have no agenda and am not trying to elevate myself or any denomination. My purpose is to elevate Christ, the Father, and the Holy Spirit.
Time for a Bible Mary vs Catholic Mary TRUCE!
https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/VxlKZereog0?rel=0
Yup; when 30,000 or 41,000 or even 80,000 march; the world trembles beneath our feet!
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.