Tradition

Curtis, I think that you totally missed the point that Rufus was making. I do not think that he was taking your side, but rather the opposite.

"The cultural context is important here. The Jewish Rabbis thought of "father" as "giver of life."

Jesus was cautioning them about that, for only God is the giver of life (physical) and of LIFE (spiritual)."

I think that he is saying that Jesus was not saying to "literally not call anyone father" as you believe.

He is saying that Jesus was warning not to think that anyone other than God is the giver of life and Life.

 

Wait, wait. A trick?

When asked if you think it is okay to call your father "father," you said you call them "dad." How is it a trick? If you can call them, "dad," but "father" is wrong, you are going to have to back up why. If you do not back it up, then I'm going to stick with the fact that "dad" is simply another word that means "father," that you are guilty of using "father," and breaking Jesus' command.

If you do not wish to go that route, show me the difference, or admit that Jesus did not mean in every sense that we are not allowed to use the title "father."

No trick. I'm simply asking you to back up your own claim that "dad" is okay. If you can't do that, say you can't do that.

God bless,

Grant

 

So you just admitted that this is only an apparent violation. That means that graven images can be made, of images of things in heaven (angels), and this does not break God's commandment.

And yet all of the Catholics ones do, you claim.

Now, is your argument that these Biblical instances were only legit because it was from specific command of God? If so, then you are saying God nullified His own law for the sake of one or two instances. Further, since he commanded men to make these, He commanded men to break the law He had previously set forth.

I'm sure you don't believe that is the case. And if not, that means these were an exception to the rule outside of the fact that God commanded it. They were already exceptions, because God would not nullify His own law, nor create a law that He would have to nullify for some reason or another in the future.

Therefore, why do images used in Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, etc churches fall inside the breaking of the law and not the exception?

God bless,

Grant

 

Curtis,

I look forward to responses to my above two posts, as well as this one.

You never addressed further my last reply in regards to 2 Corinthians, in which Paul, writing a letter to a specific people, addressed them as "the holy ones."

If they can be "holy," so can the pope. And please do not jump into individual popes who may not have been worthy of being called "holy." We need to address the corporate issue first, and once we have reached a satisfactory answer, we can look at abuses. We have to be on the same page first, though.

God bless,

Grant

 

Actually, Jesus called his father "daddy". Abba means "Daddy", not the more formal "father".

 

Does that mean Curtis in trouble?

Pulling your leg, of course, since I don't believe Jesus was making a sweeping generalization against use of the word "father."

Still awaiting your responses, brother.

God bless,

Grant

 

Brother Curtis --

Editing done. How in the WORLD did I make that mess? Must have been in a dreadful hurry this AM.

You guys are arguing about the word "holy" as if it means "righteous". It does not. Do you understand that in the OT, INANIMATE OBJECTS were called "holy?"

Holy simply means "set apart unto God". Nothing more. The idea I keep seeing tossed around is that holy brings with it the idea of a personal standard of piety or righteousness.

Brother Curtis, YOU are holy. You are holy because you are set apart unto God for His service. So don't say that you are not holy. Now you may not be "as holy" as another, by which I mean that your life (and mine) as secular laypeople may not be as consecrated unto the Lord as that of a priest or minister who is in "full time service", but that is a matter of degrees of separation and usefulness to the Lord and not of personal righteousness.

Now, if you wish to say that you are not righteous, then, of course, I would jab ya in the ribs and say "Well, what happened to "forensic (imputed) righteousness?" See, gotcha both ways!!

Everything in our lives is in degrees. I think this is what drove Luther into madness, that he could not see that God could love anything which was less than perfection (and he KNEW that he was much less than perfect in his righteousness) and it made him crazy. Yet I would ask you if Adam and Eve were perfectly righteous when they were created?

I would be interested in your answer to this.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

 

"Now THAT's a great response. Thanx, Rufus. "

Now Rufus said the context of father in Matt 23:9 was to not call a man father who you think is the giver of life. So have you conceeded on the call no man father arguement Curtis, because that is definitely not the context in which we call priests faither. Go ahead Curtis, conceed just one point. It will feel good. Then we can all move on.

 

Brother Curtis--
I thought you might respond to my post on first page.
"Brother Curtis--
Equal
No.
Call no man father--
Try Acts 7:2,
And Stephen said:"Brothers and fathers, hear me. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran
Acts 22:1,
"Brothers and fathers, hear the defense that I now make before you."
1 Cor 4:14-15,
14I do not write these things to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. 15For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.
1 Thess 2:11-12,
11For you know how, like a father with his children, 12we exhorted each one of you and encouraged you and charged you to walk in a manner worthy of God, who calls you into his own kingdom and glory.

1 Tim 1:2
To Timothy, my true child in the faith:Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

BTW doesn't the verse before say call no man teacher. I guess all I had in school were "instructors."

As for making graven images--
Num 21:8
The LORD said to Moses, Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live.
1 King 6:35
He carved cherubim, palm trees and open flowers on them and overlaid them with gold hammered evenly over the carvings.
EX 25: 17-20
Make an atonement cover of pure gold&emdash; two and a half cubits long and a cubit and a half wide.
18 And make two cherubim out of hammered gold at the ends of the cover.
19 Make one cherub on one end and the second cherub on the other; make the cherubim of one piece with the cover, at the two ends.
20 The cherubim are to have their wings spread upwards, overshadowing the cover with them. The cherubim are to face each other, looking towards the cover.
I think we can agree that one shouldn't worship images or statues but it doesn't mean they shouldn't be made. Why would God command images to be made if they were not to be made?

 

Brother Ed, if I had a dime for every typo here, I'd own this board.

Yeah, it gits downright funny sometimes.

I took out my concordance last night, and looked up "Holy". Did you know "holy, sanctify, consecrate, dedicate, and saint", are all translated from the same Greek word ? I didn't.

Well. That is VERY interesting. Learning is a great thing, isn't it? Thank you for sharing that!

Also, there were inanimate objects that were considered Holy. Ground, the sabbath, Aaron's garments, and the Altar of the Tabernacle, for just a few.

Yup. Innanimate objects, yet called "holy" unto the Lord. I guess that means that I, dumb as a stick, can be holy, too!!

Holy means set apart for God's purpose. So I guess I have been proven wrong, and I will call myself Holy. And you, since you claim Christ as your savior.

Not only holy, yer a good guy and a good brother!!

But there is practical Holiness, also. In how we live our daily lives.

Yes. I think that would have to do with, as the old Baptist preacher onct said "Not just how much of God I have, but how much of ME He has!! How am I living out that holiness in practicality of my walk -- what I do, what I say, what I think.

But following man's traditions of offering prayer to Mary,

Could we word that a bit differently? "Offering" sounds remarkably like sacrifice to God, doesn't it? I simply prefer to think of Her as my Mother in the Faith, the New Eve of the New Covenant, and having taken the place of our first common mother, Eve, She is the Mother of all the faithful.

Now, as indicated on the other thread about "Mary's blood", I do not in any way put Her above God. Her position and authority come from her union with Her divine Son, the same union that both you and I have which makes us both saints on earth as well as different people, new creatures in Christ. Without that practical and very real union, we could only be, at the best, moralistic pagans or Pelegians.

My speaking to my Mother is simply the same as speaking to you or anyone else in the Body of Christ. My dear brother, it is ONE Body, and as such, we are all joined by the mutual new birth which we share and the mutual unity which the Body has, one part with another. There is not one Body of Christ for the living on earth and another for the living in Heaven. Remember in Ephesians where it says "that he might join all in ONE BODY?

or the Mass(Eucharist)

Well, due to the numerous spirited debates all have had on this board regarding the Eucharist, I am surprized that you would call it "non-biblical" Our defense has always been to go to John 6 and discuss the words of our Lord, right?

But more than that, if our righteousness is a practical and objective result of true union with our Lord, then really the Eucharist is a real and substantive means by which we do increase that righteousness. And from that, if the Eucharist is taken in faith (for we cannot ever separate the working of the Sacraments themselves from faith in Christ. Without faith in Christ, to believe in sacramentalism is akin to believing in pagan concepts of "majic") then it will produce in us a changed life by dint of our union with Him in the Eucharist. This change is not magic, but is the result of the life of Christ ever growing in us and becoming more and more vigorous as we nourish it.

Brother, why do you think that among the many "family refrences" for Christianity, belivers are spoken of as being "born again" and being "babes in Christ". That language paints a picture, and from that picture we see real truth. The Eucharist is called "true Bread". It is food for the souls which makes the Christ life within, the real life, grow and flourish, so that we do not remain babes forever.

Or infant Baptism,

Again, this would depend upon your understanding of how we enter into the Christian life. I maintain that since it is a covenant, specifically the New Covenant, then there must be a rite of entry as was had in the Old Covenant. All covenants have certain forms by which they are entered into and consumated. Even the marital covenant, which is the picture of the New Covenant with Christ, is not really complete until the consumation by which the two become one and blood is shed (this is the way it is SUPPOSED to work with both parties being virgin on the honeymoon night!!). The shedding of blood is the giving of life ("for the life of the flesh is in the blood") and as such is a picture of the sacrificing of the one life to the other so that both become as "one flesh". Similarly, baptism is a picture of a real reality, that we do indeed die with Christ by our baptism into Him. We give up our old life, are buried (I am and ever will be an proponent of "deep water" baptism as they did it in the Early Church) with Christ in death and in UNION WITH HIM are raised to newness of life. Our old life is sacrificed.

Now....that the child does not grow up and make this real in his/her life does not change the facts. It makes them like the Prodigal who, born into the father's household, decided that the "far country" of sin was much more appealing and pleasant a prospect and left home.

don't do anything to make you more Holy, IMO.

Thank you for the admission that it is in your opinion.

Since the Bible doesn't mention any of these, they should not be considered a way to a closer relationship with God.

Well, I have tried to demonstrate that indeed they are ways to a deeper relationship with God. First by entering that relationship through the "death" of our life being sacrificed in the death of baptism and the rising to a new life which leaves the old behind, then by the continual sacrifice of our lives by union with Christ in the Eucharist. Like unto a marriage, this union calls us to give up our individual "rights" (so to speak) and become really and truly ONE with our beloved Bridegroom. It is a lifelong process, and again, like a good marriage in which both partners relinquish themselves and change in love for the other as they become closer and truly one in thought, word and deed. Go observe a couple who has really worked on this sacrificial aspect of their marriage for 40 or 50 years and you will see it in all its beauty. They almost think alike and for one another.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

 

Seems the "holy" question has been answered. My other two completely legitimate questions stand, Curtis. If you chose not to answer them over me, rather than the questions, then I will assume you have no answer. My questions are valid, even if you don't like me.

Please tell me what about my post on graven images is there to make you look stupid? I posted a very logical argument, I thought. I hope you'll answer it for me.

God bless,

Grant

 

Brother Curtis,

It was you who told me to go to the administrator, so to laugh about it shows lack of charity on your part.

If you think I tried to tear you down, I am sorry. However, these questions I pose to you now are sincere questions. I hope that you will respond to them, because I do not understand how you hold on to your position in light of them. If it's simple, please show me how it is simple, because I do not see it, and I wish to see it.

God bless,

Grant