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 ...
You are correct. I did correct my inadvertent “we”
There are some who say that...But do you know why that is??? It's because that's what God says...
Gen_2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Obviously then a soul has no life until the breath of life is breathed into it...Looks pretty simple to understand to me...
Any one above 5 years old knows a baby can not live inside his/her mother on its own...It gets its life from the mother...Regardless the baby is still alive during that period...
Any one who knows any scripture at all know that we humans have a body, a soul and a spirit...We are a trinity just as God is a Trinity...
Gen_1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
1Th_5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Therefore there is no scriptural prohibition against abortion.
How could you possibly make a connection between those statements you made??? The baby in the womb is alive (howbeit not on its own)...There is plenty of scriptural warrant for not taking the life of a baby in the womb...
But that's what happens when your religion is taught and led by philosophers instead of the words of God in the scriptures...
It looks like more explanation is needed on that post. The “breath” of the fetas is derived from the mother. The “breath of life” is in that fetas from the moment of conception.
“Whatever happened to the *every man his own pope* and *30,000 different interpretations of Scripture* memes?”
Still true - but the lock-step anti-Catholicism among FR Protestants must be maintained after all.
“Elsie and I, as well as others, HAVE discussed our disagreement with each other on this topic.”
So which one of you is wrong even though you all claim to follow scripture?
I don't think Peter had a hard time understanding Paul at all! I do hope you aren't implying that Peter was unlearned and unstable, because that is to whom he was referring when he said Paul's epistles contained SOME things which were hard to understand. Here's that passage in full:
Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
Therefore, dear friends, since you have been forewarned, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of the lawless and fall from your secure position. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever! Amen. (2 Peter 3:15-18)
I have noticed that it is RCs who typically give the RMs the most resistance when told to do something the RM judges is wrong or is reasonable, and this certainly is the latter at least. But like father, like son.
It is true that the Bible did not always have chapter and verses*, but in ancient times there were no house numbers either, but both are great helps and it is very reasonable to supply them, which you have been recalcitrant is refusing request to do so even before the RM stepped in.
If you want people to learn then you would give the address to what you are quoting, while to paste even public domain material without attribution is not a good practice to be encouraged.
As God is our witness, I only post the KJV.
But why would you post a translation Rome at one time forbid, and your bishops still do not approve of? Do you like it more than your approved NAB? Or is it the copyright issue? If doing so in condescension to Prots, then it is inconsistent to not provide the addresses.
*Stephen Cardinal Langton (c. 1150 – 9 July 1228), an Archbishop of Canterbury, is credited with having divided the Bible into the standard modern arrangement of books and chapters used today.
Frenchman Robert Estienne (1503-1559), also referred to as Robert Stephens, a Catholic who became a Protestant late in his life, is credited with being the first to print the Bible divided into standard numbered verses.
We'll find out when we get to heaven. If you had read my comment, you would know the answer. You had first asked:
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.
You were wrong, others HAVE asked and discussed the topic with Elsie. Will this be one of the "rare" times you admit you were mistaken or will you cling to your exalted never-been-wrong 'tude or change the subject again?
Indeed. I very strongly agree!
Thank you for sharing your insights, dear caww! It may take some time for the believer to find the right balance, but God Himself will help him and it’ll all be worth it.
That’s hysterical.
Playing both ends against the middle.
I can really see now why the Catholic church doesn’t trust its laity to interpret Scripture on their own.
The enemy has Catholics right where he wants them.
A water stain?
God help them. They need it.
As if RCs do not have disagreements also, which even getting the magisterium involved does not settled.One example
Congregatio de Auxiliis: Catholic theology holds on the one hand that the efficacious grace given for the performance of an action obtains, infallibly, man’s consent and that action takes place; on the other hand that in so acting, man is free. Hence the question: How can these two -the infallible result and liberty- be harmonized?
Finally, after twenty years of discussion public and private, and eighty-five conferences in the presence of the popes, the question was not solved but an end was put to the disputes. The pope’s decree communicated on 5 September 1607 to both Dominicans and Jesuits, allowed each party to defend its own doctrine, enjoined each from censoring or condemning the opposite opinion, and commanded them to await, as loyal sons of the Church, the final decision of the Apostolic See.
That decision, however, has not been reached, and both orders, consequently, could maintain their respective theories, just as any other theological opinion is held. The long controversy has aroused considerable feeling, and the pope, aiming at the restoration of peace and charity between the religious orders, forbade by a decree of the Inquisition (1 December 1611) the publication of any book concerning efficacious grace until further action by the Holy See. The prohibition remained in force during the greater part of the seventeenth century, although it was widely circumvented by the means of explicit commentaries of Thomas Aquinas. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregatio_de_Auxiliis
Maybe Catholic Answers will settle it.
I'll wait for her(?) reply.
Kinda like...
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.