Posted on 08/24/2014 3:18:46 AM PDT by markomalley
See answer to previous post. No more.
There were many Old Testament prophets, they did their purpose and many went on to displease and anger God. Just because you allowed God to use you for His purposes does not mean you have a free ticket to heaven.
Aren’t we ALL supposed to be letting HIM use us for His purpose? Isn’t that kind of the point?
The idea that God is going to treat believers differently with “secrets” or special grace is just not Biblical.
If God gave Mary "special grace" to respond, then that begs the question why God doesn't do that for all of us. It also makes one wonder if Mary's "will" was being overwritten.
And not to dispute Moses, but all OT texts should be interpreted in the light of the Person of Christ
Scripture can be viewed in two lights-the goodness of God and the inclination of man to rebel against God. And Moses didn't say, "Hey, you're weak but keep the faith." Moses said, "Hey, you're rebellious and ready to run off to some foreign god at the drop of a hat. You better be aware of that trait."
As for #20 yes that is true, but who is and is not a member is the question...
Then that really begs the question as to who is a member:
2) Was Joseph Smith a member?
3) Was Mohammud a member?
Showing respect to one person over another is sin, as per James.
We are ALL special to Him, none more than any other. He loves us all the same and does not show partiality.
Whatever He chooses to us us for, when we do it, we’ll hear, “Well done, good and faithful servant”.
What’s important is not WHAT we do as far as great things in the eyes of the world or not, but that we obey.
Whatsoever you do, whether you eat or drink, do all to the glory of God.
And, of course, the questions about Mary remain unanswered.
HarleyD:
Ad for Mary, a special Grace from God is an accurate understanding for she was endowed with God’s Grace before the Coming of Christ. Stop and think about that. How is that you me and everyone else receives God’s Grace, it is thru the person of Christ and his life, death, and resurrection. Given Mary was endowed with the Grace of Christ before his paschal mystery, it is correct to say she received Grace in a special way due to God’s favor towards Her. I stand by that understanding as a Catholic. You do not. No need to debate it any more.
As for who is a member. All who are baptized in the Catholic Church are members. I would also state all who are Orthodox are members at a 99.9999999% confidence level. Those who are not, one would suggest that those who were validly baptized in the Holy Trinity, either explicitly or had a desire to do so “could also” be members of the Body. Thus, God himself would know who those are.
As for Joseph Smith, I will not say, but obviously, his understanding of the Trinity and Christ was fundamentally flawed [On this account, you Protestants are not], thus his situation “I would personally” say was more dangerous as to whether he was a member than say an orthodox protestant, who it is plausible could be and in many cases is part of the Catholic Church, even though they do not know it or recognize it.
Again, what is above is my personal reflection on the question. I assume it was an honest question and I hope yo take it as an honest attempt to answer.
Oh?
I guess that 'no respecter of persons' thing gets looked at like the 'call no man father' thing.
And Elisha saw it, and he cried, My father, my father, [...]
Elijah was "father" and "master" to Elisha in Hebrew.
Sorry, but I can't accept that 'my father, my father' as an honorific title... or rather, as a basis for proof of a commonly used honorific title. It is an excited utterance under great stress. In fact, it is remarkable in it's uniqueness - if it were a common thing (as 'master' is), then we should see Elisha calling Elijah 'father' all the time.
That is a very precise description. and the ongoing conclusion is exactly right.
GREAT post.
HarleyD:
Obviously, I would conclude Mohammud was not
Elsie:
At some point this thing can get to viewed as borderline unhealthy addiction. There many other things to do in life besides sit on a screen and debate Catholic vs. protestant theology.
Elsie:
Do you not agree that Mary was given Grace by God before the coming of CHrist, or do you reject the Gospel passage as recorded by Saint Luke. Highly or Most Favored is an english translation that is dynamic equivalent to the most literal meaning which is endowed with Grace and because she was endowed by God’s Grace, she was truly free, for true Christian freedom is to do what God calls us to do, which is Love him, and what is Love, if it is not a freedom to respond to God’s call, so God’s Grace was the cause of Mary’s response and she responded with a Yes to God.
HarleyD:
Well I think the Catholic Tradition is pretty clear that the orthodox hermaneutical principle is to interpret the entire Sacred Scripture in light of the person of Christ. I dont’t have the CCC in front of me but I am quite sure that is defined pretty clearly and my statement is in line with that definition.
So again, we will have to respectively agree to disagree on your two-lights approach vs. my OT is interpreted in the light of CHrist or for lack of a better term, a One-way light approach.
True. An honorific would be some stately addition to a name done routinely as a matter of expectation. There is some literature that reflects this using abba, but I am at work and haven’t had a decent opportunity to check primary sources. I plan on looking at it today or tomorrow & will ping you when I post it.
Peace,
SR
Correct, but I think you miss the essence of the point here. A mother, teaching her child the alphabet is being a 'rabbi'... a 'teacher'. That is fine. If she were to insist upon her child calling her 'Rabbi' because she is his teacher, that would not be fine. If she were to insist upon wearing special robes and cause the child to assume some submissive posturing in her presence, while in her robes... well, that's just awful.
As for Father, so you do note that it does have usage in a context other than to refer to God the Father, as in Hebrew it had patriarchal links with the likes of Abraham.
Of course it does, and that continues throughout the NT.
I am an 'original image' guy - I think that the adversary gets unending pleasure from corrupting the images that YHWH set forth (which is why, btw, I am an avid iconoclast). the alternate image skews what the Father intended.
The title of father is ordained by YHWH upon one type, and one class, and the two are intimately inter-related. It is a title with tremendous power... Perhaps the most powerful office ever bestowed upon men:
The father is the strong man of the house. He is empowered to write his own law, and his wife and children, all who are in his house, must obey him. He is, to that house, the chief lawgiver, the chief judge, the chief prosecutor, the chief educator, the chief protector, and the chief provider. He is rightly given honor. As his house grows, and he ages, he becomes an elder, a grandfather, to be honored because of his wisdom. His power is also projected externally, as he is given a seat at the community's table, and participates in decisions there too.
This is the original image of a father. The seat of all human power and wisdom. This is the image given to us, and the one YHWH uses to describe himself. That image needs to be perfectly preserved, because otherwise, if the image changes, then what YHWH calls Himself is changed. And that image IS perfectly preserved right where YHWH ordained that it should be. ALL the rest are false. They do not have the power YHWH put upon the father.
There is little surprise that men would want to co-opt that image to suit their own purpose. And they did, and still DO.
But in the very same passage (Matt 23), Yeshua removes that tendency - beginning with discipleship - The first verses tear down the patriarchal system of the Pharisees. Every disciple is a disciple of Moses, not Shammai or Hillel (as instances). There IS NO succession. There is no tradition.
Likewise, every disciple of Yeshua is a disciple of Yeshua, not Peter, or Paul, or Francis, or Calvin or Luther. All of those spurious spiritual 'bloodlines', the offense of false patriarchy, all of that is down the tubes. And all of the traditions, honorific titles, pomp and circumstance - all of that went with it.
We are left with ONE Father, and ONE Master, over all of us. They deserve to be bowed down to, and they deserve all the honorific titles.
We, who put our pants on one leg at a time, are to be brothers. Equals. Service requires servant-hood - being less than equal to your brothers. the race is to the bottom as far as prestige is concerned.
And by the way, no man's words can hold the weight of the Father and the Master - That only follows.
roamer_1:
We are spinning wheels here. I mean I have laid out the case that the Catholic Church uses Father/Pope{Papa} in the context of “spiritual fatherhood” and “patriarchal fatherhood”, both supported by the NT text and Church Fathers [See article linked earlier from newadvent] and article from ccel linking Saint Augustine’s article to Pope Caelistine where he calls him Father and refers to Boniface as Pope. In that same letter, he refers to other Catholic Bishops as Bishop. So clear reading of the text suggests 1) Saint Augustine saw the Church at Rome and its Bishop [the Pope] as having a unique and special role in helping the Church maintain unity and communion and that he saw the Pope as a “spiritual father” just as the Church at Corinth viewed Saint Paul as one and the Churches that John was writing to in 1 John viewed him.
Again, we are going to have to disagree on how the father can be applied with respect to clergy and pastors, etc.
"Under great stress?" Is that a euphemism for holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.? Surely Elisha was a prophet who was just then receiving a double portion of the Holy Spirit.
Perhaps Jesus had both Moses ("Moshe Rabbeinu") and Elijah in mind when he said this. Jews say Moses was called by at least ten names and three of ten start with the "abi" father/master of construct. He is also called "Moshe rabbeinu," Moses our Rabbi/Teacher. Interesting.
I do not see what you do in the NT text, and would suggest to you that your position causes the words of Yeshua to be made of no real effect... Did anyone ever answer metmom as to what y'all think he did mean?
[...] and Church Fathers [See article linked earlier from newadvent] and article from ccel linking Saint Augustine’s article to Pope Caelistine where he calls him Father and refers to Boniface as Pope. In that same letter, he refers to other Catholic Bishops as Bishop. So clear reading of the text suggests 1) Saint Augustine saw the Church at Rome and its Bishop [the Pope] as having a unique and special role in helping the Church maintain unity and communion and that he saw the Pope as a “spiritual father” just as the Church at Corinth viewed Saint Paul as one and the Churches that John was writing to in 1 John viewed him.
Again, I hold your fathers to be of no effect, them being proven fraught with inclusion and forgery - If you would point me to extant texts prior to 250BCE, I would consider them... But you won't. Because you can't.
So yes, we will have to disagree. Have a good evening, and thanks for the amiable chat.
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.