Deadly Embrace: Nearly All of Christianity is now in Agreement says Top Vatican Official

[phkrause]

On January 25, 2019, Bishop Brian Farrell, secretary of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, gave a report on how the work of restoring unity among the Christian churches has been progressing. Quite predictably, Bishop Farrell’s statement was great news for Rome but disastrous for the rest of Christendom. Basically, he revealed that Christianity has moved away from all the old “controversies” and has entered into a new era of agreement. The bishop stated:

http://adventmessenger.org/deadly-embrace-nearly-all-of-christianity-is-now-in-agreement-says-top-vatican-official/?

[dgrimm60]

PHKRAUSE

thank  you for posting this  article===it was  very interesting  with  most of the  churches  having  represented 

people   from  all denomination =====evening  S.D.A.

dgrimm60

[Lone Ranger]

1 hour ago, The Wanderer said:

Roman Catholic Definition of "unity" is very different than most other definitions

Please explain how. 

[JoeMo]

1 hour ago, The Wanderer said:

Roman Catholic Definition of "unity" is very different than most other definitions

Not that much different than ours or Islam's. To Catholics, unity would be if everyone in the world "venerated" Mary and looked to the papacy for leadership.  To SDA's, unity would be the whole world accepting the Sabbath (aka Three Angel's Message), the health message, and the mortality of the soul. To Islam, it is the entire planet worshipping Allah and living under Sharia Law.  We all want unity "our way".  I'm confident that most here might say only SDA's have it right.

[Lone Ranger]

7 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

To Catholics, unity would be if everyone in the world "venerated" Mary...

They venerate Mary, SDAs venerate Ellen. (No offence intended) In reality SDA has combined Mary and the Pope into one person. She does it all. 

Actually,  not all Catholics venerate Mary. There is a wide latitude in understanding and acceptance of this doctrine, and it did not enter the church without opposition. 

[JoeMo]

1 hour ago, Lone Ranger said:

In reality SDA has combined Mary and the Pope into one person. She does it all. 

I wouldn't go that far.  SDA's don't pray to EGW; nor do reasonable SDA's consider her sinless or infallible.

[Lone Ranger]

1 hour ago, JoeMo said:

Not that much different than ours or Islam's. To Catholics, unity would be if everyone in the world "venerated" Mary and looked to the papacy for leadership.  To SDA's, unity would be the whole world accepting the Sabbath (aka Three Angel's Message), the health message, and the mortality of the soul. To Islam, it is the entire planet worshipping Allah and living under Sharia Law.  We all want unity "our way".  I'm confident that most here might say only SDA's have it right.

 

24 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

I would have to disagree with this posts 'definition' of "unity," as the term actually constitutes  different things within the four, major religions of Judaism, Protestantism, Catholicism, and Islam.

Because your post has no references cited for the opinons stated; I would first wonder where do you get that from? IF "unity" was "the same" or "almost the same" for everybody, then why is there NOT unity now? IF everyone agrees on it, we would have unity, but the very thing that biblical unity is about has nothing to do with doctrines, per se. IMO Each church or religion has their own, very different, official statements on the subject. I will try to cite some specific examples later

Not sure where you're going with this, as that is exactly what JoeMo  pointed out.  Each religion wants "unity" (however you define it) but on their terms and by their definition.

 

[JoeMo]

1 hour ago, Lone Ranger said:

Actually,  not all Catholics venerate Mary.

That's interesting.  I was raised a "good" Catholic - even seriously considered the priesthood until I discovered girls.  I never heard this before.  I tried to google it and found nothing.  If this is true, these Catholics are "renegade" Catholics (from an RCC POV.  The rosary is second only to the Mass as the centerpoint of RCC worship.  There are 2 feast days ("holy days of obligation") dedicated to Mary - the Feast of the Assumption and the Feast of the Immaculate Conception (that Mary was Immaculate or sinless when she conceived Jesus) - neither of which has an iota of scriptural evidence.

Admittedly, Mariology didn't develop overnight.  It started around the 6th century AD and concluded with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception about a century ago.

[Lone Ranger]

11 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

I wouldn't go that far.  SDA's don't pray to EGW; nor do reasonable SDA's consider her sinless or infallible.

Yea, you're probably right. BUT...neither is SDA 2000 years old. Give them time.

On the other hand, IMO most Adventists DO believe in the infallibility of EGW.

And I'm not sure who you would put in the "reasonable SDA" classification. 

[JoeMo]

13 minutes ago, Lone Ranger said:

And I'm not sure who you would put in the "reasonable SDA" classification.

Because most of the SDA's I know here in Colorado believe the way I do - that EGW was indeed an inspired writer; but if they can't correlate her pronouncements directly with scripture, they don't just blindly accept it; especially when more recent biblical research, ancient language research (like deciphering the ancient Hurrian language), recent  (like the past 75 years) events, and science seem to demonstrate otherwise.  Since these are the SDA's that I am surrounded with, I consider them "reasonable" SDA's.  They are also reasonable because they agree with me! 

I also believe that I belong to one of the most open-minded Conferences in the NAD. I think it's good but there are those that think it's bad.

[Lone Ranger]

9 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

That's interesting.  I was raised a "good" Catholic - even seriously considered the priesthood until I discovered girls.  I never heard this before.  I tried to google it and found nothing.  If this is true, these Catholics are "renegade" Catholics (from an RCC POV.  The rosary is second only to the Mass as the centerpoint of RCC worship.  There are 2 feast days ("holy days of obligation") dedicated to Mary - the Feast of the Assumption and the Feast of the Immaculate Conception (that Mary was Immaculate or sinless when she conceived Jesus) - neither of which has an iota of scriptural evidence.

Admittedly, Mariology didn't develop overnight.  It started around the 6th century AD and concluded with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception about a century ago.

Like everything else, there is a continuum of "belief/buy-in" to this and every other doctrine, even in the Catholic church. IOW, every doctrine is held strongly or weakly by different people, and every person holds a differing amount of "belief" for each doctrine they hold.

[JoeMo]

2 minutes ago, Lone Ranger said:

IOW, every doctrine is held strongly or weakly by different people, and every person holds a differing amount of "belief" for each doctrine they hold.

Probably true in Adventism as well.

[Lone Ranger]

58 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

They are also reasonable because they agree with me! 

Of course!?

[JoeMo]

I don't mean to imply that all of the SDA's I know are "heathens" or "apostates".  We all have our own "idiosyncrasies" concerning the fine points of theology and doctrine.  The main point is that we are all Sabbath keeping Christians who believe in the soon coming of Jesus; and we believe in salvation by grace and that Jesus is God - the only begotten Son of the Father.  We also all believe that Jesus is the only way to heaven.  Beyond that, we have multiple opinions; but they are mostly non-salvational and make for good conversation; but not worth arguing and ending relationships over.  We also believe in confessing our sins to one another.  Our church is a safe place because what is discussed personally at church stays with the participants in the conversation..

[Lone Ranger]

14 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

I call mine "idiostinkcracies"

I wonder, is there a list of all the "non-salvational" things IN THE BIBLE?

It's easier, not to mention shorter, to simply list the "salvational" things in the Bible: "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."

[Kevin H]

6 hours ago, Lone Ranger said:

Yea, you're probably right. BUT...neither is SDA 2000 years old. Give them time.

On the other hand, IMO most Adventists DO believe in the infallibility of EGW.

And I'm not sure who you would put in the "reasonable SDA" classification. 

Hey, Mrs. White herself tells us that she is not infallible, therefore she said it, we believe it and that settle it for us. It's just that she never made a mistake (except for maybe claiming that she is not infallible)

[B/W Photodude]

3 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

 I am speaking to the idea where I have heard lots of people just relegate whatever is disagreed upon as "non-salvational."

"And every man did what was right in his own eyes."

[Kevin H]

On a more serious note: I have been concerned with a McGospel that has been growing in Christianity. The idea that Salvation is saying the magic words about who Jesus is and to be able to give a history lesson about the cross, the focus on the forensic theory of the atonement, and the acceptance of the rapture and futurism, and finally confusing the Bible with the Republican party.

This McGospel does away with the theology of the Sabbath, it minimizes the need for exegesis because they have arrived at salvation and thus have the assurance of salvation thus why dig deeper into the Bible, and it does not leave much room for God working among and having children in other religions.

As for  JoeMo's "whole world accepting the Sabbath (aka Three Angel's Message), the health message, and the mortality of the soul." Mrs. White writes about the difference between true and counterfeit revivals.

What they both have in common is a great gathering into the churches  but in the counterfeit the churches downplay their differences and unite on what they hold in common. In the true there is a change of heart and a desire to want to know more about God and the Bible and to be fair to their personal understanding of the truth. But instead of using their differences to look down upon each other, they respect where the other is and support their liberty of conscience and where they examine their understanding by what others say to be sure that they are not using their views to reject scripture.

Thus the one is based on a sticky sweet emotionalism (falsely called "Love" ) where differences don't matter, and there is an attitude of "I have arrived" which is what I'm seeing in this McGospel.

The other is based on unity in diversity, a thirst to know the Bible on a deeper and deeper level, listening to others and evaluating our understanding and offering them the benefit of the doubt  and respecting their liberty of conscience.  This is a reason why we don't call our ministers "Reverend" and why I am uncomfortable when I see a church who calls themselves "Full Gospel". the only place we have full gospel is in Jesus. Once we get to his disciples, let's say the 12 we have 12 different understandings of the gospel. With the rise of Fundamentalism we are blinded to the differences and contradictions in the Bible books, say the differences and contradictions between the most glairing books are Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and Mark and Luke. These differences and contradictions have messages we need to learn and teach us different aspects of God that we loose in not recognizing them.  

[B/W Photodude]

4 hours ago, Lone Ranger said:

It's easier, not to mention shorter, to simply list the "salvational" things in the Bible: "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."

It is a little more complicated that that. Many are walking around believing that because they may have gotten "saved" many years ago that they don't have to worry about a thing or do anything else in this life because their ticket to heaven is already punched.

I think that many do not even understand what "believe" and "faith" even mean. "Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me." That is a lot harder. Even the rich young ruler turned away sad when he could not do what was requested of him.

[Lone Ranger]

25 minutes ago, B/W Photodude said:

It is a little more complicated that that.

Maybe for you. Not for me.

[Kevin H]

2 hours ago, Lone Ranger said:

Maybe for you. Not for me.

I don't think that the two views are too far apart. Too many people think that believing is the knowledge of something. The Children of Israel in the exodus saw the miracles, heard God's voice but still many did not believe in him, because they did not know him and were not building a relationship with him.

Too many Christians see the purpose of evangelism is to make people say the right words about God's existence, say the magic words about Jesus, and give a history lesson about the cross (then become Fundamentalist and Republicans).

Then there are other Christians who end up having a "Do and Don't" list for salvation (actually the above group also has a to do and don't but their list is shorter).

I just read a statement by Shawn Brace that said "Every step towards selflessness, no matter how big is a step towards Jesus."

We need to trust in Jesus' love for us no matter where we are in our spiritual growth. I love the understanding that the difference between heaven and hell being two responses to seeing Jesus in person. And from this perspective learn more and more about Jesus deepening our friendship with him.  

[Lone Ranger]

10 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

I agree, one-verse doctrines have been tried before and are as dry as the hills of Gilboa.

It seems some are confusing salvational issues (how we are saved) with Christian lifestyle issues (how a Christian should live.)

And I'm actually speechless that some also think that saved by grace through faith is a one-verse doctrine.

[JoeMo]

1 hour ago, The Wanderer said:

She warned people against rejecting her testimonies, not because she thought she was infallible; but because she was genuinely concerned.

Thanks for that.  In a way, it was a pleasant new thought for me.

[B/W Photodude]

7 hours ago, Lone Ranger said:

It seems some are confusing salvational issues (how we are saved) with Christian lifestyle issues (how a Christian should live.)

And I'm actually speechless that some also think that saved by grace through faith is a one-verse doctrine.

There will be many who expect to go to heaven and Jesus will say, "Depart from me, I do not know you." And I bet many will have fallen for that idea that they do nothing more than "believe." Grant it, God's grace makes it possible to be saved, but that does not mean you have no obligations on the way to salvation. Read carefully the book of James (the book some Christians want removed from the Bible). Pure religion and dead faith will be discussed there.

[B/W Photodude]

6 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Giving her own husband deer meat when he was sick, and all manner of other things could be used to show how open-minded she actually was.

I think she preferred that they not eat meat, but given the times, it may have been necessary. Today not so much.

Deer are clean animals, but they are also subject to disease like many others. For awhile, everyone was worried about Mad Cow. It seems to have been felt more in the UK and only rarely have infected cows been found in this country. But the deer population is being infected with a cousin disease:

Fatal disease similar to mad cow spreading in America's deer

The inability of wildlife agencies to halt the disease spread has scientists concerned. One of their biggest fears is that -- like mad cow -- it might become infectious to humans.

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2019/01/04/Fatal-disease-similar-to-mad-cow-spreading-in-Americas-deer/8471546607594/

Prion diseases have a long incubation period and we may see the day when this disease starts showing up in hunters and their families and friends. It already is infectious, just hasn't been found in people yet. Science writers don't always get it right.

This prion disease is also related to kuru kuru which occurs in cannibal communities.