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 ...
Think about it, memom. You're a sensible person.
Second, my arguments about "father" are all Scriptural. Any Scriptural argument could be mistaken --- that's one reason why Scriptural interpretation by any one in-DUH-vidual like myself, can be debated --- but a Scriptural argument should be debated, not just blown off, either.
Love you, metmom. No offense to God.
Check out Romans 13:8
"Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law." Makes a good tagline.
Right. Except for Biblical evidence:
2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
That doesn’t change a thing. God said “don’t bow to graven images”. Your trying to justify by showing bowing out of respect to living humans is immaterial.
I've got WAY too much Berean DNA in me to accept this without some references.
YES!
Down right scary!
I accept ALL of your Catholic faith and morals!
(That can be found in the bible.)
I can see why YOU would say this! ;^)
Isn't there something like this in the CCC?
All Tradition is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
I’m at work...I’ll have to spend some time tonight putting something together and we can share our thoughts
Very! Did you know the Tree of Hope died? And that is was uprooted on Passover this year?
FYI, Dr Dobson Family Talk this week replayed an interview (3 days about 20 min each) with the Rabbi from May this year (I think). You can download or stream at Family Talk.
Adds a bit more to what’s in the book. I also read The Mystery Shemitah he wrote
What is stuning Boatbums...is they DO bow, light candles to, fold their hands in prayer, mouth prayers to, these images and yet somehow in their twisted thinking this is not worship.....so it begs the question then what do they do when they do worship Christ if bowing, and praying, and sying prayers is only veneration?
They “strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.” (Matthew 23:23-25)
Looks like we are going to disagree on this one...But I have no problem with that...
Fetuses get their oxygen thru the blood of the mother...While I agree that life is in the fetus, the breath of life doesn't take place till the baby takes its first breath outside the womb...
And that doesn't take away at all from the sin of killing a fetus of any age...
MDO: Right. Except for Biblical evidence:
2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
There is a vital part of ordinary hermeneutics where you try to parse out what is being said in the text as narrative and distinguish the narrative from didactic value. It's like that old chestnut, "Judas went out and hanged hisself," combined with "go thou and do likewise." Now that's meant only in good fun, but you get the idea. What any two people say to each other in Scripture is not the end but only the beginning of getting to the didactic value. We agree on the principle of 1 Timothy 3:16-17, but don't forget that only comes about by "rightly dividing the word of truth."
The miracle of the wine at Cana was designed to show Jesus' authority to perform miracles on the natural order, in proof of His messianic claims. It is not designed to showcase that Jesus responded differently to Mary than to any other believer. If anything, the focus seems quite the opposite, that it demonstrates 1) Jesus was willing to mildly rebuke her for drawing Him into a public display of His power before the official beginning of His public ministry, and that 2) despite this loving rebuke, Mary knew what sort of person Jesus was, both in power and in character, and was confident He would condescend to help out anyway, in which she was correct. But note that He did the miracle in such a way that only the servants would know how it came about, and so He kept His low profile until the time was right, while providing a glimpse to the lowly servants of great things son to come.
Didactically, what can we get from this? First, that Jesus really is on His own schedule, and specifically disclaims here doing this miracle out of any sense of obligation, either to Mary, or to the people of the wedding party. Quite the opposite of any theory of special maternal influence. Some have thought what Jesus was saying is that this wedding was not his concern. No doubt Mary was there because she was a friend of one or both of the families, and she wanted the event to go well for her friends' sake. But Jesus had a much different sense of priorities, and He told her so rather bluntly.
Second, we see that we can have hope that He will respond when we seek His help, even in things that might seem unimportant in the grander scheme of things, not because we have any special pull, or any means of inducing in Him a sense of obligation, but because He is just that kind of generous, gracious, kind-hearted person, Who will hear and consider our requests, even if they aren't important to anybody but us.
Third, we see that His kindness in helping us with the little things will not in any way distract Him from His big picture objectives. He did not let this little "catering crisis" draw Him into His public ministry prematurely. One can argue at this point whether there are any events so small they don't influence the big things, but that's for Him to know and us not to worry about. And that's kind of the attitude Mary took. Who knows what a string of happy family moments led her to such confidence in His good will and power, and who knows how those memories might have served to ease the pain in later years of watching her son and those who followed Him treated so badly by the world. But in this moment she trusted Him, even after a rebuke, and it was worth it. Those who putt their trust in the Lord will not be disappointed.
Peace,
SR
Would appear so...
As stated it still remains "a baby" which your statement attests to regardless if in our outside the womb.
Interesting is a baby suddenly becomes a "fetus" ONLY when abortion is in mind. All parents who discover the mother is pregnant announce..'We're having a baby"....never a fetus.
Life...of a baby begins at conception IMO. Growth, developement and the breath of life occur as these "are necessary to survive" in the world in which the baby will come into.
Vandalism, isn’t it?
("Y'uns" = "All y'all" though the meaning has a certain latitude due to --- latitude.)
Anyway, listen in and respond if you wish. I probably won't get back to the rest. Like all of us, I have a LAFFR: Life Apart From Free Republic!
So: to metmom.
"Simple conversation is NOT praying as the kind directed towards Mary is."
How would you know? --- you who do not pray to saints? Yes, it is "simple" conversation, in fact it could be any kind of communication: it could be hymnody, something in the grand poetic style, or even Scripture. Anything that might be communicated, to FReeper, queen or cleaning lady, including "Hi."
"Besides, Mary is no longer on this earth. She can’t be communicated with as one would communicate with me."
The evidence that I have communicated with you is, at best, equivocal.
;o0
(Not an insult, just an observation. Like so many FReepers, we do talk past each other: though sometimes by grace-- by His grace --- we connect, yes?)
"And we are forbidden to try to communicate with those whose physical bodies have died."
Oh? We are forbidden to think of those who have passed on, as if they were "dead" as the world supposes. Jesus communicated with those who were "dead" (e.g. Moses and Elijah), and Jesus furthermore taught that "Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" are not dead, because:
Mark 12:27 |
Bu I think you are talking about necromancy --- conjuring the dead, attempting to fortune-tell or cast spells or acquire occult powers through the dead --- and that is forbidden.
But noplace in the Bible is intercessory prayer with and for other members of the Body of Christ, forbidden.
James 5:16 |
James doesn't follow this up with "Except in heaven, where spiritual love and help and effectiveness drop down to zero."
The foundational understanding here, I would say, is the reality of the Body of Christ. We are all members of Christ, and that includes, of course, those who are now in heaven. And the Body of Christ does not consist of large and larger clumps of dead cells as the ages roll on and more and more of the faithful pass beyond the bars of death. We are all still alive in Christ, and that means we are in living, effective contact with each other through Christ, just as the cells, tissues, organs and systems, the limbs and senses are in contact in a living body.
Then Paul says:
1 Cor. 12:20-27
But now indeed there are many members,
yet one body.
And the eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you”;
nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.”
No, much rather, those members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary.
And those members of the body
which we think to be void of honor,
on these we bestow greater honor;
and our unpresentable parts have greater modesty,
but our presentable parts have no need.
But God composed the body,
having given greater honor to that part which lacks it,
that there should be no schism in the body,
but that the members should have the same care for one another.
And if one member suffers,
all the members suffer with it;
or if one member is honored,
all the members rejoice with it.
Now you are the body of Christ, and each of you is a member of it.
Do you see how tremendous this is? There is no indication whatsoever that there is any “schism” in the Body, or that anyone ceases to have this intimate connection with Christ or with Christ’s other members, when they are in heaven. And we belong not just to Christ, but to all the others IN Him, as Paul says in Romans:
Romans 12:5
In Christ we, though many,
form one body,
and each member belongs to all the others.
“That He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth—in Him…. He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.
This is so significant: we -- both in heaven and on earth --- are members of His body, the fulness of Him who fills all in all.
Can anyone think that those who have gone on before us into heaven are dead clumps in the Body of Christ, who have no living relationship with us, nor we with them? God forbid! As Paul says, “And the eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you”; nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.”
We all participate in payer and carry each other’s prayers to the Father, just as I might carry your prayer to the Father, metmom, and you might carry mine, when we pray or each other. St.John gives us a peek into Heave and lets us see this astonishing things, that with us the creatures and elders of Heaven, and angels, too, participate in this great loving ceremony of prayer:
Revelation 5:8
Now when He [the Lamb] had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each having a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.
Revelation 8:3-4
Then another angel, having a golden censer, came and stood at the altar. He was given much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne. And the smoke of the incense, with the prayers of the saints, ascended before God from the angel’s hand.
I’m amazed and in wonder, at the absolute lively interactive interdependence of His Body, which is all of us as His members, with Him who is our Head.
Only bit-T Tradition: Apostolic Tradition. Substitute this term and, yes, that would be a pretty good description.
Well, yeah, but who ever proposed such an idea?
What is being addressed isn't loving Mary, it's committing one's entire being to Mary.
Second, my arguments about "father" are all Scriptural. Any Scriptural argument could be mistaken --- that's one reason why Scriptural interpretation by any one in-DUH-vidual like myself, can be debated --- but a Scriptural argument should be debated, not just blown off, either.
Well, taken in context, Jesus is addressing the apostles and addressing titles given to religious leaders.
He no more meant that children should not call their male parental unit *Father* then He meant that we should not love others because we are to love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength.
I've seen all the arguments trying to justify calling religious leaders by the title *Father* and they all basically end up with absurd, shall I say< reasoning? Well, everyone else calls their male parent *Father* so either they're all sinning or it's OK for us to call priests *Father* (and to violate a clear command of Jesus).
In a word, No. That just doesn't work.
Like my mother used to say, *Just because someone else jumped over Niagara Falls, doesn't mean you should too.*
Blessings on you now and always.
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.