Mary was without sin even while on the earth,
You are just assuming that. Romans 3:23 "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."
Tertullian, Origen, Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Basil, Hillary – 6 of the Early Church fathers who taught that Mary had sinned.
Ken, does Romans 3:23 mean thatJesus also sinned? If there was one exception to Romans 3:23, why couldn't there be another exception?
Also, not everything the early Church Fathers believed was correct. They weren't infallible (and the opinion of the rigorist, puritanical Tertullian ought not be seriously considered on this point).
Combox for:
"Why Do Catholics 'Pray to Mary'?"
[28 April 2008]
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...ay-to-
mary.html
----------------------
You are just assuming that. Romans 3:23 "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."
I'm not assuming anything because I have backed up these views with Holy Scripture:
Luke 1:28 (Full of Grace) and the Immaculate Conception: Linguistic and Exegetical Considerations
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/
2...immaculate.html
Dialogue on the Exegesis of Luke 1:28 ("Full of Grace"), and the Immaculate Conception (Dave Armstrong vs. Ken Temple)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...e-128-
full.html
Dialogue with an Evangelical Protestant on Catholic Mariology (including an explicitly biblical argument for the Immaculate Conception, from Luke 1:28, related exegesis, and the meaning of grace) (Dave Armstrong vs. Jack DisPennett)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...testant-
on.html
"All Have Sinned . . . " (Mary?)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...inned-
mary.html
Tertullian, Origen, Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Basil, Hillary – 6 of the Early Church fathers who taught that Mary had sinned.
So what?
Anyone who denies Mary's Immaculate Conception also has to believe that St. Bernadette and Sister Lucia were either liars or lunatics.
Which is it, Ken?
"Tertullian, Origen, Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Basil, Hillary – 6 of the Early Church fathers who taught that Mary had sinned."
"So What?"
Well, there goes "unanimous consent" of the fathers. Rome defines a dogma based on Tradition. We examine history and see there's actually conflicting views amongst the fathers. Is 1 father good enough as a witness for a dogma/Tradition, 10, 50? Now I have not read this work (so maybe context helps), but came across this citation which seems to gel with many non-RC concerns over Tradition (here with the Assumption, but could deal with the IC reasoning as well as many other RC teachings):
Joussard cited in Carol's Mariology: “A word of caution is not impertinent here. The investigation of patristic documents might well lead the historian to the conclusion: In the first seven or eight centuries no trustworthy historical tradition on Mary’s corporeal Assumption is extant, especially in the West. The conclusion is legitimate; if the historian stops there, few theological nerves will be touched. The historian’s mistake would come in adding: therefore no proof from tradition can be adduced. The historical method is not the theological method, nor is historical tradition synonymous with dogmatic tradition.”
It basically seems to come down to, Rome says it, so we'll believe it, even if the evidence to support it seems lacking which is problematic to most Protestants. "Unanimous consent", the "constant teaching of the church", etc. etc. basically boil down to "trust our authority, you're not reading history or scripture correctly". Is there then anyway to test traditions/teachings as Christ instructed? Not really - the faith in Rome is a priori.
"Ken, does Romans 3:23 mean thatJesus also sinned? If there was one exception to Romans 3:23, why couldn't there be another exception?"
Yeah, there *could* be any number of exceptions. But are you really suggesting Christ's sinlessness is not referred to all over the place or that the IC is in the same ballpark in terms of scriptural evidence? I'm sorry but the lone "full of grace" does not compare to the extensive witness of Scripture to the sinlessness and uniqueness of Christ. Here's another question - do you think the Apostles understood the IC? I'm not saying they had to for it to be true - I don't think they had a full-orbed understanding of the Trinity for example. But do you think they were completely oblivious to it and hence the scarce support for it in their writings?
Interesting discussion here.
Dave, what support do you have that the witnesses of Heb 12:1 are witnessing us? Having just come from chapter 11 about the importance of faith, it seems that the are witnessing the power of faith, and hence, the power of God. The text does not say that they witness us.
Also, given the witnesses listed in Heb 11, why don't Catholics tend to pray to OT saints - Moses, Elijah, Abraham, etc? If Heb 12:1 teaches what you say, it would seem to me that the natural interpretation would be to flock to these men and women before say Athanasius, Augustine, Theodoret, etc.
Peace,
BJ
Stupid Scholar
Technically, Tertullian and Origen aren't church fathers since they are not saints and they both espoused views which could be considered heretical. Be that as it may, here is what the Origen and some of the others said of the Blessed Virgin Mary"
Origen thought that, at the time of Christ's passion, the sword of disbelief pierced Mary's soul; that she was struck by the poniard of doubt; and that for her sins also Christ died (Origen, "In Luc. hom. xvii").
In the same manner St. Basil writes in the fourth century: he sees in the sword, of which Simeon speaks, the doubt which pierced Mary's soul (Epistle 259).
St. Chrysostom accuses her of ambition, and of putting herself forward unduly when she sought to speak to Jesus at Capharnaum (Matthew 12:46; Chrysostom, Hom. xliv; cf. also "In Matt.", hom. 4).
As I understand it, Tertullian believed that Mary "sinned" because she had sex with St. Joseph. He did not believe that she was a perpetual virgin. (I will try to find the text.)
I will try to find out how exactly the others believed that Mary sinned.
So far, the views of the gentlemen I have found all ascribe to a notion of sin which I do not believe that anyone would think are actually sinful.
Also, given the witnesses listed in Heb 11, why don't Catholics tend to pray to OT saints - Moses, Elijah, Abraham, etc? If Heb 12:1 teaches what you say, it would seem to me that the natural interpretation would be to flock to these men and women before say Athanasius, Augustine, Theodoret, etc.
---------
Actually, The Church does indeed recognize the sainthood of Moses, Elijah, Judas the Maccabee, Abraham, etc. In the Eastern Catholic liturgies, those names are invoked during the prayers of the faitful for intercessions.
Hebrews 12:1 has the cloud of witnesses witnessing us becuase hebrews 12:1sets up a motif of a great sports spectacle that is on par with St. paul's words like "finish the race". The saints in hevan are seen to cheer us on in our journey with God.
A piece on praying to Mary?
Expect at least 100 coments.
Possibly overnight.
Romans 3:23 obviously does not include Jesus. You all know that, when there are clear verses that Jesus did not sin --
John 8:46
I Peter 2:22
Hebrews 4:15
Hebrews 7:26
I John 2:2
I Peter 3:18
Since the Scripture clearly teaches this, and we have no positive verses that Mary is also sinless, and you admit she is a human creature and she is not God; then she was a sinner and sinned. She her self confessed her need of a Savior, Luke 1:46.
Luke 1:26 is just a greeting by the angel on her finding favor with God in order to be the chosen woman to be the mother of the Messiah; nothing more.
If anything, because of the same verb as used in Ephesians 1:6-7 that being graced upon, or showing grace to us, which is freely bestowed on us in the beloved, -- this shows the connection that is un-merited favor in spite of us being sinful - verse 7 "In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace."
This points to her being a sinner and needing grace and redemption and forgiveness.
The early church fathers who believed that Mary sinned, shows that, as Innoculator wrote, completely destroys this idea of "the unanimous consent of the fathers", a completely non historical claim.
I saw that there were 0 comments; and I knew that one comment of mine would start a bunch -- here we go!
Origen was indeed a heretic, but you use him when you agree with him.
Tertullian was right on so many things, infant baptism, Mary and Joseph having a normal marriage after Jesus was born; first using the term Tri - unitas.
He was wrong on penance, but you use him on that whole system when it agrees with your church.
Apparently Dave is trying to get his "comment count" up. 
Jesus taught us to pray directly to the Father. And if you look at the Lord's prayer, we go to Father for EVERYTHING!! It's not like we go to God to praise Him but then go to heavenly saints to help us find things, be safe while we travel, or get that new job. Jesus taught us to go directly to God for everything. Why aren't there any recorded instances of the Apostles praying to Moses or the other patriarchs? Because they didn't.
Why not go directly to God? Communion of the saints? That's not a biblical principle; it's mere speculation. We all agree Heb 12 is referring to our Christian walk as a sporting event, but there's no guarantee that the heavenly saints are actually watching us. It's merely imagery. The "great cloud of witnesses" Paul refers to could be earthly saints...our living brothers and sisters in Christ.
I don't believe praying to heavenly saints was even formal RC dogma until after the 4th century, so it's clearly not apostolic teaching or tradition.
.
Tertullian does not ascribe sin to Mary based on her having other children after Jesus; but implies her fault of unbelief, doubt, lack of faith (for a time) in On the Flesh of Christ, 7
You can look at the 3 passages usually given to show that Tertullian understood Mary and Joseph to have a normal marriage after Jesus was born. In these he does not ascribe sin to having sex in marriage.
Against Marcion, Book 4, 19
He clearly believed Jesus’ brothers were real flesh and blood brothers by Mary.
On Monogamy, 8
On the Veiling of Virgins, 6
The early church fathers who believed that Mary sinned, shows that, as Innoculator wrote, completely destroys this idea of "the unanimous consent of the fathers", a completely non historical claim.
Sorry -- that should have been Interlocutor.
What does it mean?
"The Majority of Roman Catholic scholars candidly admit with Perkins that most of the Marian dogmas in Roman Catholicisim have little or no basis in Scripture:
"Dogmas of this sort are not directly derived from New Testament evidence. McKenzie puts it even more bluntly: The New Testament affords no historical basis for the beliefs in the immaculate conception or the assumption of Mary."
(p. 33, Eric Svendsen, Who is My Mother? Calvary Press, 2001.
The miracle of the mass disappears altogether . . . Protestantism ceased praying for the dead . . . [and] divested itself as much as possible from the three most ancient and most powerful concomitants of the sacred - mystery, miracle, and magic . . .
Are you admitting that Roman Catholicism has elements and appearances of ascribing to magic here? ex opera operato certain seems like it.
Well, there goes "unanimous consent" of the fathers.
Not at all, because you fail to understand that that term does not mean "absolutely every" -- as it is used today, but rather, "consensus of the vast majority" in line with the magisterium of the Church. See a short paper by Steve Ray that explains this:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...ch-
fathers.html
the Flowery language of praise in prayer is wrong and she is made too much of and exalted beyond what the Scriptures say.
Praying to Mary is much more than just "asking her to pray for us":
Prayer: O Mary, no one receives any favor except through you. He me to ask you each day for the graces I need to remain faithful in my state of life."
. . .
O Mary, your holy name is great and brings us salvation. Let me strive to speak it with true love, boundless joy, and complete confidence."
. . .
O Mary, you are our Mother and our Teacher, instructing us in how to live. Help me to heed your inspirations and follow your Divine Son more closely."
pp. 98-99 Mary Day by Day,
1987 Catholic Book Publishing, Nihil Obstat: Daniel V. Flynn . . . Imprimatur: Patrick J. Sheridan, D.D. Vicar General, Archdiocese of NY.
On the unanimous consent of the fathers issue:
Steve Ray and your argumentation just don't fly with logic, reason, normal use of language; nor history.
It is a modern attempt to escape the implications of this; for if your church is wrong on one thing; the whole thing falls. And it is wrong on many things, especially the Marian dogmas and the "unanimous consent of the fathers" statements -- these things fell your Infallibility dogma and the whole RCC system like a giant oak tree falling down.
O Mary, your holy name is great and brings us salvation. Let me strive to speak it with true love, boundless joy, and complete confidence."
"Mary brings salvation!" What more evidence do we need of exalting her above the Lord and only Savior, Jesus Christ?
All of these facts and this blasphemous statement and prayer alone should keep any thinking Evangelical from being dupped into converting to Rome by the tricks of always raising doubt and skepticism as to how do we know for sure who are in the right church, historical church, Newman's "to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant" arguments.
All of those 6 early Christians are earlier and older than the edifice of the late dogmas of Mary; so therefore, to be deeper in history is to actually hold on to Scripture alone as the final and only infallible rule and source for doctrine, faith, and practice.
Hi BJ,
Dave, what support do you have that the witnesses of Heb 12:1 are witnessing us? Having just come from chapter 11 about the importance of faith, it seems that the are witnessing the power of faith, and hence, the power of God. The text does not say that they witness us.
It's in my paper on this verse, linked in the post:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...ebrews-
121.html
Here's one excerpt:
Word Studies in the New Testament (Marvin R. Vincent, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980; orig. 1887; vol. 4, p. 536), another standard Protestant language source, comments on this verse as follows:
"'Witnesses' does not mean spectators, but those who have borne witness to the truth, as those enumerated in chapter 11. Yet the idea of spectators is implied, and is really the principal idea. The writer's picture is that of an arena in which the Christians whom he addresses are contending in a race, while the vast host of the heroes of faith who, after having borne witness to the truth, have entered into their heavenly rest, watches the contest from the encircling tiers of the arena, compassing and overhanging it like a cloud, filled with lively interest and sympathy, and lending heavenly aid."
Also, given the witnesses listed in Heb 11, why don't Catholics tend to pray to OT saints - Moses, Elijah, Abraham, etc? If Heb 12:1 teaches what you say, it would seem to me that the natural interpretation would be to flock to these men and women before say Athanasius, Augustine, Theodoret, etc.
I don't see why. The OT saints lived before the age of Christ, and were only selectively indwelt by the Holy Spirit. They're certainly great men, but we have the statement of Jesus that John the Baptist is the greatest of the prophets. and there is a sense in which anyone in the Church age has a spiritual advantage over those who lived before Christ.
But any saint is fit to ask for intercessory aid.
Ken, do you ever learn anything about Catholicism from your massive "dialogues" with us on this board? One tires of explaining things over and over. As to the flowery Marian language issue, I've dealt with that long since:
Does St. Alphonsus de Liguori, in The Glories of Mary, Teach That Mary is "Above God" and Can "Manipulate God"? (Corrections of Protestant Misunderstandings of Catholic Mariology) (Dave Armstrong vs. Len Lisenbee)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...in-
glories.html
This guy (as usual, with anti-Catholics) fled for the hills and was never heard from again, when his misunderstandings (to be kind) were corrected. I went through a similar sort of "dialogue" with your good pal John Q. Doe.
Dave,
I don't see why. The OT saints lived before the age of Christ, and were only selectively indwelt by the Holy Spirit. They're certainly great men, but we have the statement of Jesus that John the Baptist is the greatest of the prophets. and there is a sense in which anyone in the Church age has a spiritual advantage over those who lived before Christ.
But any saint is fit to ask for intercessory aid.
Well, given the fact that the text explicitly deals only with OT saints - not Mary, dead Apostles, etc - it still seems like the direct application would be to focus on them. But I get the point.
Your dictionary entries about martus is interesting. I'm going to do some investigative work about that on my end. Thanks for the link.
In Christ,
BJ
Stupid Scholar
"Not at all, because you fail to understand that that term does not mean "absolutely every" -- as it is used today, but rather, "consensus of the vast majority" in line with the magisterium of the Church."
No, I'm aware of that view which is why I didn't bring forth Irenaeus and some of his views on Jesus' age and millenialism. That's why I mentioned the numbers - what percentage comprise a "vast majority"? We have 6 listed so far denying it, however many affirming her sinlessness (though they may admit they are speculating or that it's a matter of pious opinion), and however many silent on the issue. Do you think the Assumption has the "unanimous consent" of the fathers then, given you would not be able to bring forth a "vast majority" of fathers writing on it (and Epiphanus admits he is mainly speculating) and in light of the Joussard quote? Or, if you think that is sidetracking the issue from the IC, where are the critical responses from others to the writings of the fathers who did not hold to the IC if this was the general belief of the "vast majority"? (This is simply a reversal of the "argument from silence" that Ray promotes for the papacy).
Ken Temple wrote:
Steve Ray and your argumentation just don't fly with logic, reason, normal use of language; nor history.
To the contrary, Your Dictionary.com gives the following as synonyms:
unanimity Synonyms
n.
accord, unity, unison, concord, consensus, harmony, concordance, sympathy, congruence, conformity, correspondence, apposition, compatibility; see also agreement 2.
Antonyms disagreement*, discord*, dissonance.
http://www.yourdictionary.com/unanimity
Note that "consensus" is included: precisely as I have stated. Not every term must mean "absolutely every."
Roget's Thesaurus gives similar synonyms:
unanimity (520.5; under general category, "Assent")
like-mindedness, meeting of minds, concurrence, consent, accord, general agreement, consensus, consensus of opinion, general acclamation.
(New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 3rd edition, 1962, p. 339)
Steve Ray wrote another article on this topic in Envoy Magazine:
http://www.envoymagazine.com/
bac...thoffathers.htm
The Latin phrase is "unanimem consensum Patrum."
Note St. Vincent of Lerins' famous passage:
“In the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that Faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense ‘Catholic,’ which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one Faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors” (Commonitory 2)
See how he qualifies it at the end? This passage is often used polemically against Catholics. So if it is to be so used, then let our detractors at least understand its meaning properly. The same book is also the most explicit exposition of the notion of development of doctrine in the Church Fathers.
Answers.com gives the same meaning:
Thesaurus: unanimity
noun
The quality or condition of being in complete agreement or harmony: consensus, unanimousness. See agree/disagree.
http://www.answers.com/topic/unanimity
If you go over to "consent" you find:
Dictionary:
consensus
n.
1. An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole: “Among political women . . . there is a clear consensus about the problems women candidates have traditionally faced” (Wendy Kaminer). See Usage Note at redundancy.
2. General agreement or accord: government by consensus.
[Latin cōnsēnsus, from past participle of cōnsentīre, to agree. See consent.]
http://www.answers.com/topic/con...?
cat=technology
I submit, then, that your self-serving negative characterization of this point falls flat. The meaning as used by Catholics is completely possible by the rules of etymology and definition.
Hi Interlocutor,
You have produced six who denied the sinlessness of Mary. I have 61 Fathers listed in my book on the fathers. I have documented for many of these, that they accepted Mary's sinlessness.
The Assumption was a very slowly developing doctrine and difficult to find at all in many Fathers, but that gives me no pause over against Protestantism, since the two pillars of Protestantism, sola Scriptura and sola fide, are scarcely found at all among the Fathers, and the canon of Scripture is a completely "unbiblical" doctrine, where the Protestant has to inconsistently rely on the infallibility of Catholic Church tradition.
If you think 5-10% dissent in the fathers regarding particular issues is a problem for us, why is not 95-100% dissent in the Fathers and complete absence in Scripture as well (canon, Bible alone) not a problem for you? Goose and gander.
O Mary, your holy name is great and brings us salvation. Let me strive to speak it with true love, boundless joy, and complete confidence."
"Mary brings salvation!" What more evidence do we need of exalting her above the Lord and only Savior, Jesus Christ?
This is not evidence at all. People bring the savation of Jesus to others all the time. Why can't Mary do the same. in fact, Mary has brought us Jesus in the most literal sense of the term. She gave Jesus her very flesh. So if she brings us Jesus then she brings us salvation, doesn't she?
All of these facts and this blasphemous statement and prayer alone should keep any thinking Evangelical from being dupped into converting to Rome by the tricks of always raising doubt and skepticism as to how do we know for sure who are in the right church, historical church, Newman's "to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant" arguments.
Newman's argument proves protestantism false. So if you prove the RCC wrong you will simply have proved Christianity wrong. You have done nothing to solve the problems of protestants. The reality is that Jesus really is God and He did leave us more than a mass of contradictions to witness to that fact.
All of those 6 early Christians are earlier and older than the edifice of the late dogmas of Mary; so therefore, to be deeper in history is to actually hold on to Scripture alone as the final and only infallible rule and source for doctrine, faith, and practice.
So you won't accept any doctrine denied by 6 early fathers. Are you sure you want to accept that principle? Being deep in history does not mean picking and chosing but making consistent sense out of all the data. You can't come close.
The reality is that doctrine can develop logically so it makes sense that later fathers might be more clear on this than earlier ones. In the case of Mary it makes sense that the questions of Christolgy were addressed before the questions of Mariology. You see we really do have the priority straight. Mary is important only because Jesus is important. We need to understand Him before we can understand her.
Ken wrote, citing Catholics:
O Mary, your holy name is great and brings us salvation.
"Mary brings salvation!" What more evidence do we need of exalting her above the Lord and only Savior, Jesus Christ?
All of these facts and this blasphemous statement and prayer alone should keep any thinking Evangelical from being duped into converting to Rome by the tricks of always raising doubt and skepticism as to how do we know for sure who are in the right church, historical church, Newman's "to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant" arguments.
Very well, then, Ken. Great! You have succeeded in proving that the Bible and St. Paul both are blasphemous and exalt the Apostle Paul above Our Lord Jesus, since we have these passages in Scripture:
1 Corinthians 9:22 I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
[Paul "saves" other people, thus clearly placing himself above God, and blaspheming, right, Ken?]
1 Timothy 4:16 Take heed to yourself and to your teaching: hold to that, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.
[Good grief! What blasphemy! After his own outrageous claims, St. Paul now thinks that Timothy can save himself (the Pelagian heresy) and those who hear him. Doesn't he know that only God can save??!!!]
2 Corinthians 4:15 For it [his many sufferings: 4:8-12,17] is all for your sake, so that as grace extends to more and more people it may increase thanksgiving, to the glory of God.
Ephesians 3:2 assuming that you have heard of the stewardship of God's grace that was given to me for you...
Ephesians 4:29 Let no evil talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for edifying, as fits the occasion, that it may impart grace to those who hear.
[Paul distributes divine grace, just as we believe Mary does, and teaches that others can do the same]
St. Peter joins in this folly of teaching that Christians can distribute divine grace to each other:
1 Peter 4:8b-10 . . . love covers a multitude of sins. Practice hospitality ungrudgingly to one another. As each has received a gift, employ it for one another, as good stewards of God's varied grace.
So much for papal infallibility, huh???
Good work, Ken!
Interlocutor said: Yeah, there *could* be any number of exceptions. But are you really suggesting Christ's sinlessness is not referred to all over the place or that the IC is in the same ballpark in terms of scriptural evidence?
No, I'm not suggesting that. I'm merely pointing out that if "all have sinned" proves Mary sinned as Ken claims, then it also proves that Jesus sinned. If Ken doesn't want to accept the heresy that Jesus sinned, then he must accept that Rom. 3:23 does not prove that Mary sinned.
Here's another question - do you think the Apostles understood the IC?
No, I don't think they did -- but then I don't think anybody understands the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, or any other divinely-revealed mystery.
As for Ken's attack on "unanimous consent of the Fathers," this is just another case of a Protestant refusing to accept the Church's own definition of her words. Instead, he essentially substitutes his own definition, claims it is the Catholic definition, and then crows that the Catholic doctrine has been shown to be false.
Otherwise known as the Straw Man fallacy.
But do you think they were completely oblivious to it and hence the scarce support for it in their writings?
They had to be aware of it in some sense, or else the Church could not believe it to be true.
Whoops, I jumbled the order of sentences in my comment . . . .
Hi Ken, I believe that I have used both Tertullian and Origen in the past as proofs of what the early Church believed, but I am uncomfortable in doing so for the reasons I suggested in my comment. I try to find ECFs which agree with what they say. Further, what they have to say is certainly valid from a historical viewpoint. But perhaps, you were talking about Catholics in general rather than me specifically.
Hi BJ, As far as OT saints go, the grade school I went to had pictures of St. Abraham and St. Moses and St. Elijah on the walls. Also, as Justin pointed out Eastern liturgies mention them. In the Latin Rite, we too invoke the names of OT saints in the litany of the saints sung at the Easter Vigil Mass.
Hi Ken, As far as what I thought Tertullian's belief in Mary's sinfulness was about, I believe I had read it in a commentary somewhere, but I appreciate you providing me with better information than relying upon my own very fallible memory. Thank you!
It's perfectly acceptable to cite both Origen and Tertullian when they are part of the overall consensus of the fathers on any given issue (I did so in my recent book). They were both important thinkers in the early Church.
Origen was off on some things, but so were even Augustine and Aquinas, by Catholic magisterial criteria. And Tertullian cannot even be cited as a Catholic, after he adopted the Montanist heresy.
Some fathers (mostly in the east) got it wrong with regard to Mary's sinlessness. We know this. It's nothing new. Doesn't mean the patristic consensus was absent.
I appreciate you providing me with better information than relying upon my own very fallible memory. Thank you!
Paul Hoffer
you are welcome Paul. I am trying.
What was Augustine off on according to the magisterium today?
What was Aquinas off on according to the RCC magisterium?
There are probably several areas where Augustine and Aquinas hold to erroneous opinions. Most famously, Aquinas doubted the Immaculate Conception. As for Augustine, well, offhand I recall that he argued that babies who die without baptism suffer the fires and pains of hell, an opinion that later was rejected as incompatible with God's justice and mercy.
Everyone,
1 Corinthians 9:22 I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
It's easy to understand what Paul is really saying here. He's simply pointing out he's the earthly vessel God uses to bring some to salvation.
1 Timothy 4:16 Take heed to yourself and to your teaching: hold to that, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.
Again, by holding fast to God's Word and teachings, Timothy will do his part to save himself and others. I can explain each one of these, and likely everyone here (reformed and RC alike) would agree with me.
But then we get to this, O Mary, your holy name is great and brings us salvation. First of all, we all agree the Bible is inerrant, so we can agree those passages Dave quotes don't mean Paul & Timothy are the source of salvation.
This prayer is NOT guaranteed to be inerrant. Randy said, "in fact, Mary has brought us Jesus in the most literal sense of the term. She gave Jesus her very flesh." But that's not what the prayer says. The prayer says her "NAME BRINGS us salvation" not her "name BROUGHT us salvation." And to accept what Randy said would require the prayer to say, "you (not your name) brought (not brings) us salvation."
I've heard people say, "You need to call on the name of Jesus for salvation." We'd all probably agree that's an ok statement. Maybe not the most theologically sound statement but not blasphemous either. But what does it mean that Mary's "holy name is great AND BRINGS US SALVATION?" How is that not putting her on the same level as Jesus as provider of salvation?
Salvation is through Jesus Christ alone. God may allow others to join in the process, but God forbid anyone of us ever says, "Grubb's name brought salvation to that person," or "Dave's name brought salvation to that person," or "Ken's name brought salvation to that person." No matter how big a part someone plays in another person becoming a Christian, it's Jesus who gets all the credit. That prayer, at very best, appears to give all the credit for salvation to Mary. At worst, that's what it intends to do.
.
Grubb,
You first argument does not make much sense. You say Paul is just "the earthly vessel God uses to bring some to salvation." But if Paul can do that why can't Mary? Why is it blasphemy to connect her name to salvation and not a problem for Paul? You say you can explain these teachings and I am sure you can. Can you explain why the parallel with Mary is not valid? That is the argument and you seem to be ignoring it.
The next portion seems to quibble with the wording. That somehow saying "Mary brought us salvation" would not bother you at all but "O Mary, your holy name is great and brings us salvation" is a problem. So if Mary is in heaven continuing to offer Jesus to this world that prayer would be OK? That would not put her equal with Jesus. So it is not a matter of blasphemy. It is just that you disagree about Mary's current activity.
What does the "name of Jesus" or the "name of Mary" means? My understanding is it is referring to our family connection with them. To do something in the name of your father would be to act as a family member rather than as an individual. You could say the same thing about the name of your mother. Although I have not seen the phrase "the name of Mary". It could refer to a connection with the family of God in much the same way the "name of Jesus" or the "name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" does.
Dear Grubb,
'That prayer, at very best, appears to give all the credit for salvation to Mary'
Are you saying the words of the prayer are DELIBERATELY ambivalent?
'At worst, that's what it intends to do.'
Are you saying that the writer has deliberately concealed his true meanining?
in Christ
'That prayer, at very best, appears to give all the credit for salvation to Mary'
I am interested what you think was the intention of the writer, was it deliberate ambivalence or just an unfortunate choice of words for the prayer? Is there some censure there?
'At worst, that's what it intends to do.'
At worst the words of the prayer intend to give all the credit for salvation to Mary? So the intention of the writer (at worst) was to give all the credit for salvation to Mary. Yes?
One last thing just occurred to me;, you said that the prayer 'appears' to give all credit for salvation to Mary, then you say at worst they intend to give all credit for salvation to Mary. How, if the words appear to give all credit for salvation to Mary can they intend to give all credit at the same time? Is it they appear to intend? Or they actually do intend to give all credit for salvation to Mary.
Randy,
But if Paul can do that why can't Mary?
Two reasons: 1) She's not an earthly vessel anymore. 2) There's no guarantee heavenly saints are helping us at all. That's mere speculation on the RCC's part. God constantly allows humans to aid in leading other humans to salvation, but in the end He gets all the credit.
Why is it blasphemy to connect her name to salvation and not a problem for Paul?
We don't connect Paul's NAME with salvation. Paul never said, "You're saved in the name of Paul" or "Paul's name has brought you salvation." His actions which were working in concert with God's helped lead some to salvation, not his name.
Can you explain why the parallel with Mary is not valid?
There's no parallel to make, because we don't claim people are saved by the name of Paul.
The next portion seems to quibble with the wording.
I was pointing out that the argument you offered (that she "brought us Jesus in the most literal sense" via birth) isn't what that prayer is insinuating at all. If it was, the wording and verb tense should have been different. You can call it quibbling, but the fact is based on the grammar that prayer wasn't referring to her giving us Jesus via birth.
What does the "name of Jesus" or the "name of Mary" means?
The name of Jesus has great power. When the Apostles went to cast out demons, they did it in the name of Jesus, not in the name of Paul, Apollos, John the Baptist, or Mary. (Luke 10:17) In fact, even a man who wasn't one of the Apostles was driving out demons in the name of Jesus. (Mark 9:38 ) And Paul said, "Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (Phil 2:9-11) He didn't make that claim about Mary. In fact even Mary bows at the name of Jesus.
Although I have not seen the phrase "the name of Mary". It could refer to a connection with the family of God in much the same way the "name of Jesus" or the "name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" does.
No, it couldn't; she's not equal to God. There's a reason you haven't seen "The name of Mary." The name of Mary isn't above every other name and doesn't bring salvation. Only the name of Jesus is and does.
.
James,
Are you saying the words of the prayer are DELIBERATELY ambivalent?
I don't think they're ambivalent at all. The author said Mary's name can bring salvation to the lost, and I believe that's what he meant. If that's not what he meant, then the wording of the prayer IS ambivalent whether it was intentional or not.
Are you saying that the writer has deliberately concealed his true meanining?
I can't speak to the author's intent. I can only speak to what is. The prayer says Mary's name brings salvation, and that contradicts the idea that Jesus alone brings salvation.
When the Bible says "at the name of Jesus every knee should bow," is it really just the name, or is it what the name represents? If the Son of God had been given a different name, THAT name would be what caused everyone to bow. The name of Jesus is equal to God and can bring salvation. The name of Mary is equal to a righteous, grace-filled, God honoring woman, but it isn't equal to God. And since she isn't equal to God, neither she nor her name (which simply represents her) can bring salvation.
.
James,
One last thing just occurred to me;, you said that the prayer 'appears' to give all credit for salvation to Mary, then you say at worst they intend to give all credit for salvation to Mary. How, if the words appear to give all credit for salvation to Mary can they intend to give all credit at the same time? Is it they appear to intend? Or they actually do intend to give all credit for salvation to Mary.
When I say it appears that the author is giving credit for salvation to Mary rather than Jesus, that's my way of saying: maybe it's not what he meant to do, but that's how it looks.
When I say at worst he intends to give all credit for salvation to Mary, I'm saying: I believe he gives credit for salvation to Mary, and that's what he meant to do. It doesn't just appear to be what he's saying; it IS what he's saying.
Am I still confusing you? I'm not trying to.
What do you think this prayer means? What do you think the author intended?
.
Hi Grubb! The problem you are observing with prayers to Mary, or to any of the saints for that matter, is the problem of perspective. To a person who reads one of these prayers "cold" without a proper framework to understand them, it would appear that the authors of these prayers ascribe attributes or virtues which belong to God. However, for one that is raised the world where the word "pray" does not necessarily mean "worship" or the fact that these prayers are borne out of the beliefs defined by the Church in response to heresies which specifically attacked the divinity or humanity of Jesus, it becomes easier to put the prayer in the proper perspective.
As to the former, I can give a brief example, As an attorney, I write pleadings all the time which state something to the effect, "Wherefore, the Plaintiff prays that the Court grant the following relief . . ." Am I praying to the court? Am I worshipping a judge or magistrate? Am I ascribing to the bench a measure of the divine? No, of course not. The word "pray" does not mean only worship.
As to the latter, Mary did bring salvation into the world. It is through her that Jesus came into the world. But for her assent to God's request delivered through the Angel Gabriel, we would still be living in sin and darkness because Jesus would not have been born. You are reading more into the prayer than is actually there.
I understand that Protestants have a problem with such language. Reading such prayers in isolation without a good grounding or understanding of such prayers, they seem alien and perhaps even blasphemous, but when they are put back into the framework of what the Church teaches, they make far more sense.
And even in the New Testament itself, there is a certain kind of "worship!"(Gr. "doxa") which is appropriate to both God and man.
"Glory (doxa) to God in the highest” Luke 2:14
“But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship (doxa) in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee.” Luke 14:10 KJV
http://www.studylight.org/lex/gr...cgi?
number=1391
Thus it is perfectly Scriptural to speak of “worship” or “glory” in connection with God’s saints!
'What do you think this prayer means? What do you think the author intended?,
Dear Grubb
I did wince at the wording at the beginning. Not for any disconfiture with the meaning but I winced because I knew how you and Ken would interpret it.
What Paul has said above is applicable; it's all perspective.
What interests me though Grubb and Ken indeed, is that you hint or suggest or appear or seem to say to say that catholics are ambivalent about the position of Mary. And your own language (the language of plain speaking Protestantism) is full of 'seems' and ''appears'.
I dislike also the insinuation of duplicity on the part of we catholics. We 'appear' to say something when really we mean something else.
in Christ,
Paul,
It's true, Jesus was born of Mary; and in that sense (and that sense alone) she brought us salvation. The problem I have with that prayer is that's not what it says. It says her "holy name brings us salvation." The fact that the author used the present, on-going tense of "bring" suggests that he's referring to something besides the birth of Jesus. She's not continually bringing us salvation via the birth of Jesus; it was a one time event. And if that's what the author meant, he should have used the word "brought". Randy said I was quibbling when I mentioned this to him, but it really is basic 5th grade English.
How do you boil a frog alive? Throw it in a pot of hot water? No, it'll jump out. Put it in a pot of cool water and raise the temperature gradually until the frog boils. It won't jump out if the temperature is raised gradually. I believe this is what's happened to the RCC. Over the centuries one thing after another has been added to her doctrine to the point where many of her dogmas and disciplines get in the way of following Jesus whole-heartedly. You mention that many PTs don't get RC prayers and teachings, because they didn't grow up in the RCC; but I DID grow up in the RCC. I was in it actively from 0-7 years old and from 16-25ish...and I still don't like this prayer to Mary.
Does the Reformed Church have "issues"? Undoubtedly. Even churches set up by Paul had to be reinstructed. The difference is that the Reformed church compares its ways to the Bible and recognizes that this or that may have been wrong and changes. Even if the Pope reads this blog and says, "You know, that Grubb is right. He's absolutely right! Praying to heavenly saints is unbiblical and anti-biblical. We've had it wrong all these years. I've got to put a stop to this. Thanks Grubb." (Hey, if Dave can dream up a conversation with James White and Martin Luther, I can dream up a scenario where the Pope agrees with me on this.) I don't think the Pope COULD change this due to the fact that praying to heavenly saints is probably positively affirmed in some papal decree, and to do so would acknowledge the RCC has been wrong for 1600 years.
But praying to heavenly saints is clearly unbiblical and (IMO) anti-biblical. It's unbiblical, because no one in the Bible does it or encourages it...EVER. And it's anti-biblical, because Paul tells us there's only one mediator between God and mankind, Jesus. This prayer to Mary is the perfect example of why we shouldn't pray to anyone but Jesus/God. I can see where a RC might say they don't worship the saint the pray to, and that may be true; but it's so obvious from this prayer to Mary and many others I've seen that praying to anyone besides God, CAN lead to saint-worship. THAT is why we shouldn't pray to Mary or any other heavenly saint.
.
James,
First let me clear the air. When I say X appears to do Y, it's in an attempt at charity. In other words, maybe the author didn't really mean Mary is responsible for salvation, but that appears to be what he's saying. Maybe there's a cultural, translation, or difference in time-periods that makes what he intended to say sound like something else. Since I'm not the author of that prayer, I can't say with 100% certainty what he meant. I can only address what he appears to have said (based on the English I'm reading) and whether I thought that's what he meant or not (based on what else I know about the RCC).
I never suggested he was being duplicitous. One can be accidentally unclear or misleading without being duplicitous. As I said earlier, I don't think he was being duplicitous at all. I think what he intended to say is exactly what he appears to have said: Mary's name is responsible for salvation. Nor do I think the RCC or RCs are ambivalent about Mary's position. You've exalted her way more than you should have.
See, that doesn't sound as nice as, "You appear to have exalted her way more than you should have," does it?. Without the "appear", I'm saying something definitively. With the "appear", I'm at least allowing that I might simply misunderstand how y'all really view her.
.
It's true, Jesus was born of Mary; and in that sense (and that sense alone) she brought us salvation.
You need to stop and think about this. Don't just gloss over it and move on to what you really want to say. Jesus as born of Mary. She brought God to this planet. In Ireland they love St Patrick because he brought the gospel to their island. Mary brought not only the message of Christ but Christ Himself and not only to Ireland but to the whole world. If you stop and really think about that then Catholic thinking on Mary starts to make some sense.
And if that's what the author meant, he should have used the word "brought". Randy said I was quibbling when I mentioned this to him, but it really is basic 5th grade English.
I guess I was wondering if the tense of the verb was your only problem. I think the mere mention of Mary's name makes you cringe. I know it did for me when I was protestant. So taking a line from a prayer that some Catholic prayed somewhere and saying you would prefer it be worded differently is hardly an objection. I would not word a prayer that way. You don't need to accept this prayer as a good prayer to be Catholic. So what is the heart of the objection? It feels wrong to you. Is it because it might be referring to Mary as Co-Redemtrix or Mary as Mediatrix of All Graces? If so, we should just talk about those things directly.
The difference is that the Reformed church compares its ways to the Bible and recognizes that this or that may have been wrong and changes
This sounds great until you realize that comparing you ways to the bible involves reading the bible with a lot of cultural and traditional baggage. So if the answer changes wht is more likely, that previous generations goofed in their reading of scripture or that the culture has changed and has caused us to read the bible differently? So what are you really being obedient to?
If the pope thought you were right he would be correct to question his own mind due to the fact that Catholic tradition is firmly against him. Not because he is afraid to admit the church is wrong. It is because the church is right. No pope is interested in maintaining a myth of the church being right. But they want to maintain it because it is true. It does not even depend on them. It will remain true because God guarentees it.
But praying to heavenly saints is clearly unbiblical and (IMO) anti-biblical. It's unbiblical, because no one in the Bible does it or encourages it...EVER.
It ir not directly taught in scripture but it does follow logically from things in scripture. So going to church on Sunday is unbiblical in the same sense that praying to saints is unbiblical. It can be logically inferred as a good thing to do but it is not explicitly commanded.
And it's anti-biblical, because Paul tells us there's only one mediator between God and mankind, Jesus.
Mary is a mediator between man and Jesus. If Jesus was not both God and man she would not be able to bring us to God. So their is still one mediator in the sense that He enables all other mediators. You and I can become mediators too because Jesus has done the hard part by bridging the gap between God and man. We just have to get people to the bridge and we are done. If God chooses to use us that way then why can't he choose to use Mary even more powerfully?
This prayer to Mary is the perfect example of why we shouldn't pray to anyone but Jesus/God. I can see where a RC might say they don't worship the saint the pray to, and that may be true; but it's so obvious from this prayer to Mary and many others I've seen that praying to anyone besides God, CAN lead to saint-worship. THAT is why we shouldn't pray to Mary or any other heavenly saint.
I don't think the person who wrote this prayer is engaging in saint worship. I can't read their heart but knowing people who have prayed similar prayers I see it as highly unlikely. Failing to pray to saints can lead to the idolatry of individualism. The saints are an important way to connect you with the larger story of salvation. the Jesus and me spirituality is much more dangerous.
I've made a mistake there Grubb. My falult, I shouldn't have accused you of insinuating duplicity. Apologies for that.
And, reading over the prayer, I find maybe it is a little bit, shall we say, unsound.
So I have totally changed my view.
But Grubb there must be thoudsands and thousands of prayers written to the Virgin. Each one can't be canonically checked, have the inmprimartur.
And Grubb (I'm back fighting again) you write; 'You've exalted her way more than you should have.' How can you not give the highest exaltation to the mother of God?
James,
No problem, and I accept your apology 100%. Thank you.
I agree there are 1000s of prayers to Mary, and many may not have been checked and approved by the RCC. Even still, that prayer has been defended by multiple people here.
(I'm back fighting again)
I literally laughed out loud at that.
How can you not give the highest exaltation to the mother of God?
Because that position belongs to Jesus alone. Paul said, "Therefore God exalted HIM to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (Phil 2:9-11)
I don't doubt that Mary was an incredibly Godly woman...probably the most Godly woman that ever lived. But she was still a woman, not a god; and as such, she doesn't get the highest praise. God does.
See Randy, I don't have the slightest problem ascribing huge praise to Mary. I really don't cringe when someone says Mary is worthy of praise. She is. I plan to address the rest of your comments this weekend or Monday. Sorry I can't get to them today.
.
Randy,
She brought God to this planet.
Well, she brought God incarnate to this planet. God the Father was already at work on earth long before Mary gave birth as was the Holy Spirit. God used Mary to bring us Jesus, and that speaks volumes to her character. He also used Joseph to guide and teach Jesus as he grew; that speaks volumes to his character, yet he's not revered nearly so much as Mary is.
I guess I was wondering if the tense of the verb was your only problem. I think the mere mention of Mary's name makes you cringe.
The tense of the verb wasn't my concern at all until you suggested the author of that prayer may have been saying Mary brought us salvation by giving birth to Jesus when the prayer actually reads, "your holy name is great and brings us salvation."
Mary, mother of Jesus. Mary, mother of Jesus. Mary, mother of Jesus. There, I said it 3 times and didn't cringe once. For the 20th time, I don't have a problem with revering Mary in the same way we do Paul, John, Peter, David, Solomon, Job, and Hezekiah; I have a problem when it goes beyond that to saying she's a co-mediatrix or co-redemtrix.
This sounds great until you realize that comparing you ways to the bible involves reading the bible with a lot of cultural and traditional baggage. So if the answer changes wht is more likely, that previous generations goofed in their reading of scripture or that the culture has changed and has caused us to read the bible differently?
This is an excellent point; one that I've also used when it comes to female pastors and homosexual marriages. The difference is, those 2 issues are condemned in both the OT and the NT. Prayer to anyone but God is never supported in the Bible or by the Church until around 350 AD. And even then, it wasn't accepted widespread immediately. Do I think they "goofed"? Biblically speaking, yes. With homosexual marriages and female pastors, we can quote chapter and verse as to why they're wrong, so we're not just basing modern doctrine on a tradition that started 1600 years ago but rather on truth that was documented in the Bible for the last 5000 years. It is important to have "smart guys" who REALLY understand the culture of the past to help us understand some points of the Bible we may otherwise misunderstand. That helps us avoid errors in doctrine.
.
It ir not directly taught in scripture but it does follow logically from things in scripture.
Like what?
So going to church on Sunday is unbiblical in the same sense that praying to saints is unbiblical.
I agree they're both unbiblical, but attending church on Sunday isn't anti-biblical. We're not told anywhere in the Bible that we can only attend church on one day, and that day is Saturday. We are told "there is only one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." (I Tim 2:5b) Not only are we told there's only one mediator, Paul tells us who it is....and it's NOT Mary.
Mary is a mediator between man and Jesus.
Can't be, because then there would be 2 mediators between God and Mankind: Jesus and Mary (that's not even that "new math" ). I Tim 2:5 forbids there to be more than one mediator.
So their is still one mediator in the sense that He enables all other mediators.
That's contradictory. One mediator is ONE mediator. If He enables "other mediators", then it's no longer one but many which makes Paul out to be a liar. I'm sure that's not what you're intending, but it's the net result of what you're saying.
I don't think the person who wrote this prayer is engaging in saint worship.
It sounds just like saint worship to me.
Failing to pray to saints can lead to the idolatry of individualism.
Are you saying every Patriarch in the Bible was potentially an individualist, because they didn't pray to heavenly saints? If that's true, I want to be one too!
.
Well, she brought God incarnate to this planet. God the Father was already at work on earth long before Mary gave birth as was the Holy Spirit. God used Mary to bring us Jesus, and that speaks volumes to her character. He also used Joseph to guide and teach Jesus as he grew; that speaks volumes to his character, yet he's not revered nearly so much as Mary is.
St Joseph is revered. There are fewer objections to St Joseph so it might not seem so on apologetics sites. Away from the apologetics world many saints are revered. Not as much as Mary but Mary did contribute her DNA to Jesus while Joseph did not. So I would say a greater reverence for her makes sense.
I have a problem when it goes beyond that to saying she's a co-mediatrix or co-redemtrix.
Those terms are a little confusing. Pope Benedict has said he does not like the way that doctrine is expressed. He does think it is true but he says the wording is very confusing, especially to protestants. I would be glad it they come out with something like that.
Does it not make sense the power the saint have to intercede for us would be greater for greater saints? That Mary, who was more powerfully used by God on earth, would be used by God in a special way in heaven as well? The exact nature of that role could be revealed to us by God. It can be known by logic but we need the church to be sure our reasoning is right. It really comes down to trusting the church. If you suspect they are trying to slip something by you then you don't understand the nature of the church.
This is an excellent point; one that I've also used when it comes to female pastors and homosexual marriages. The difference is, those 2 issues are condemned in both the OT and the NT.
But that is your thinking. There are a ton of protestants who thing that is not obvious at all. A clear majority accept female pastors. A growing number accept homosexual marriages. Don't you see that once you open the door to questioning what the church has always taught you have no defense against liberalism? If the historical church, including many reformers, can be wrong about Mary then what can't they be wrong about? If you don't have a good answer then Christianity can be whatever someone can convince themself the bible says.
Prayer to anyone but God is never supported in the Bible or by the Church until around 350 AD. And even then, it wasn't accepted widespread immediately. Do I think they "goofed"? Biblically speaking, yes.
Not sure when the first written account of this is. My guess is it is before 350. But the fact that something is not written does not mean it did not exist. There was a veneration of relics early on. I know we have the remains of several saints from the second century preserved in an altar. Revelations describes the saints as being under the altar. Not sure if the early church followed John's description or if the placing of saints under tha altar preceeded the writing of revelation. Anyway, this was all way before 350.
With homosexual marriages and female pastors, we can quote chapter and verse as to why they're wrong, so we're not just basing modern doctrine on a tradition that started 1600 years ago but rather on truth that was documented in the Bible for the last 5000 years. It is important to have "smart guys" who REALLY understand the culture of the past to help us understand some points of the Bible we may otherwise misunderstand. That helps us avoid errors in doctrine.
The "smart guys" can help you avoid errors. They can also introduce errors. They always seem to disagree so they mostly serve to make the biblical evidence less clear. Essentially you can choose which cmart guy to believe. That leaves you in charge of manufacturing your own biblical truth.
Are you saying every Patriarch in the Bible was potentially an individualist, because they didn't pray to heavenly saints? If that's true, I want to be one too!
It is interesting that you mention the patriarchs. Because it brings to mind the the notion of God being described as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. That is they were saying they were under the same coventant as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But Jesus said it was more than that. God was a God of the living and not the dead so Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob must be alive. What does alive mean? Are they active? Are they responding to stimuli? That would make them very similar to saints.
Sure, covenants have to begin somewhere and that is why the first participants in a new coventant would not typically refer to those who had gone before. That explains why the apostles did not refer to saints and we do. So you are saying you want a new covenant just for yourself because you don't like connecting with those that have gone before? That seems a little arrogant. Really it is a blessing to know the church in heaven and the church on earth. Why would you want to rob yourself of that? Just because you want to limit God to things that have a proof text?
BTW, you seem to show some ignorance about the biblical arguments for the veneration of saints. I am not sure if you are just pretending tthey do not exist. Dave has a bunch of papers.Start here:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...index-
page.html
Randy,
Does it not make sense the power the saint have to intercede for us would be greater for greater saints?
David was the least likely in his family to be used by God in a mighty way due to his age and physical traits, yet God used him mightily. There are other examples of this in the Bible where the lesser talented or likely person ends up rising to the top. If God thought as we do, it might make sense that the ones He used mightily on earth may be mightier in heaven. But since His ways are higher than our ways, he may use the least of us for the greatest purpose in heaven. Further, we don't even know for certain what heavenly saints are doing or what earthly things they're aware of. That they even know what's going on here is pure speculation.
Don't you see that once you open the door to questioning what the church has always taught you have no defense against liberalism?
But the RCC hasn't ALWAYS taught praying to heavenly saints. They used to pray FOR heavenly saints, not TO them. We still have the Word of God against liberalism. God's Word condemns homosexuality and female pastors. Just because many Protestant churches and some RC Bishops & priests accept those two practices, doesn't mean they have the Word of God supporting them.
Not sure when the first written account of this is. My guess is it is before 350.
http://ctlibrary.com/3935 says,
Praying to the Dead
January 1, 1993
"Praying to the saints began with the practice of praying for them. ... Soon churches drew up lists of martyrs, believing that prayer for martyrs was of “great benefit to those for whom it is offered” (Cyril of Jerusalem). Origen said praying for the dead attested to the living unity of Christians in heaven and on earth—the communion of saints. ... Gradually, the church believed that martyrs, having made the ultimate sacrifice, already lived fully in God’s presence. They didn’t need the church’s prayers as much as the church needed theirs: “Only God can pardon, though we see that the merits of the martyrs have great weight before his tribunal” (Cyprian of Carthage).
...
Despite fears of idolatry, the practice of praying to saints was affirmed by later church leaders such as Augustine and Aquinas."
Worship in the Early Church: Christian History, Issue 37, (Carol Stream, IL: Christianity Today, Inc.) 1997.
We see from this (assuming it's accurate) that Cyprian of Carthage may have been the first to suggest (at least at the Bishop level) that praying TO the saints was beneficial. It was in the middle of the 3rd century, not the middle of the 4th as I previously stated; my apologies for the error. But note that Cyril of Jerusalem lived from 313-386AD, and he was still praying FOR heavenly saints. That's why I said the notion of praying TO heavenly saints wasn't accepted widespread immediately.
.
Sure, covenants have to begin somewhere and that is why the first participants in a new coventant would not typically refer to those who had gone before. That explains why the apostles did not refer to saints and we do.
But Paul watched as many saints were killed BEFORE he became a Christian himself. Plenty of saints had gone before Paul by the time he wrote all of his letters. Why didn't he suggest praying to them? Why did he never suggest praying to Moses or Abraham? Why didn't Jesus?
So you are saying you want a new covenant just for yourself because you don't like connecting with those that have gone before?
No, because we don't know that we connect with those that go before. It's not taught in the Bible anywhere that they're aware of us. In your opinion, what will heavenly saints do after Jesus returns, crushes the wicked, raises the saints, and the New Jerusalem is established? I presume you'll say something like, "They'll worship and praise God for eternity." If that's true, how do you know they're not already doing that? How can you be so sure they're watching you and me? Because the RCC established a tradition sometime after the 4th century?
Why would you want to rob yourself of that? Just because you want to limit God to things that have a proof text?
We should just get rid of that pesky Bible and go with made up traditions not established by the Apostles. Don't you agree?
During His ministry, Jesus knew how it was in heaven and knew the mind of God. That's apparent when He said in heaven men & women won't be given in marriage as they are on earth. Further, when asked about divorce, He said God desires that no one get a divorce. So we see Jesus prophesied on more than one account of heavenly things, yet He never spoke of praying to heavenly saints. When asked how to pray, He could have said, "You guys won't believe what's coming. One day soon you'll have all kinds of people in heaven praying for you, and you'll be able to pray to THEM as well as God." But He didn't; He taught us to pray to the Father. Paul could have done the same thing, but instead he said there is only ONE mediator, Jesus.
BTW, you seem to show some ignorance about the biblical arguments for the veneration of saints.
Why am I showing ignorance for not mentioning something that's irrelevant? To revere someone for being used mightily by God doesn't even hint that we should pray to them. Seems I'm actually showing some intelligence for not bringing up superfluous information.
.
God was a God of the living and not the dead so Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob must be alive. What does alive mean? Are they active? Are they responding to stimuli? That would make them very similar to saints.
Yet He STILL didn't encourage prayer to them!! Why?
.
Grubb,
I get the point about God's criteria of greatness being different from man's. The notion of greatness I am talking about is God's greatness. No secular historian is going to focus on Mary. It is only by the leading of the Holy Spirit that the church had any notion of how great a saint she is.
Further, we don't even know for certain what heavenly saints are doing or what earthly things they're aware of. That they even know what's going on here is pure speculation.
You are begging the question here. Speculation that has been discerned by the church to be led by the Holy Spirit and proclaimed by the church as true. That is no longer pure speculation but revelation. The Holy Spirit really does lead the church into truth just like Jesus said. If you assume that is silly then rising to the next level will seem quite odd. Catholics know the first layer is solid so we are not afraid to build on top of it. Protestants are stuck on the first layer forever because they don't allow God to speak to them outside of scripture. So your "pure speculation" comment is assuming a protestant viewpoint.
But the RCC hasn't ALWAYS taught praying to heavenly saints. They used to pray FOR heavenly saints, not TO them.
Not a huge difference. The point is we have communion with the saints. We help them. They help us. The two go hand in hand. The practice was refined after a while. That does not make it new.
Prior to the middle of the 3rd century we had a lot of persecution. The written record is much more sparse from that time. I would not put to much stock in the fact that a certain practice is not commented on beofre then.
Dear Grubb,
BTW means by the way? IMO?
I don't have the dictionary definition of exalt.
Take 'Queen of Heaven' from the Litany. Would you say that's OK? It's certainly an exalted position?
Giving her the highest exaltation DOES NOT mean worshipping her.
Really what I meant by giving her the highest exaltation is she is the highest exalted creature.
We don't exalt Jesus, we worship Jesus, adore Him.
Oh Grubb, you say she was '''''''probably'''' the most Godly woman who ever lived'. Thanks for the faint praise.
You equate all saints the same. You wouldn't put Mary above say Saint Thomas?
More conciliatory-that last debate troubled me a lot. Then of all things there was a programme on tv on Lourdes. And I did have you in mind when I saw all the weeping and emotion on display. I understood your point that from the outside it could look like she is God.
But it is not like that on the inside.
I see your point though that from the outside it could look that way.
And the words of the prayer. I see your point there too.
And the accusation came from me being over-zealous. I've been far too agggressive in my posts her, which I'm going to try to curb.
in Christ,
Dear Grubb,
Yet [God] STILL didn't encourage prayer to [Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob]!! Why?
How is it you STILL have not heard the gospel???
HEAVEN IS OPEN, Grubb. HEAVEN IS OPEN!!
Of course in the O T times (which times form the basis of your objections) HEAVEN WAS CLOSED!
http://books.google.com/books?hl...was%20closed%
22
http://www.google.com/search?hl=...hi=&
safe=images
Thus that intimate participation in the very life of God Himself –that participation in the divine nature – was, as yet, NOT permitted to men, but only to the good angels.
Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires. 2 Peter 1:4
But now, Grubb, with the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ,
HEAVEN IS, ONCE AGAIN - OPEN!
THIS IS THE GOOD NEWS! THIS IS THE GOSPEL!
And man’s intimate relationship with his Maker, with all that that implies, has been restored! Indeed, this relationship has been restored far beyond anything we can possibly imagine.
Rather, we speak God's wisdom, mysterious, hidden, which God predetermined before the ages FOR OUR GLORY. 1 Cor. 2:7
But as it is written: "What eye has not seen, and ear has not heard, and what has not entered the human heart, what God has prepared for those who love him.” 1 Cor. 2:10
You are simply arguing your case as though Christ, and His unspeakable gift of making us members of His own body, of making us co-heirs with him, did not even exist!
And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. Romans 8:17
Please think about this dear friend.
James,
IMO = In My Opinion. Kids these days are shortening everything.
Take 'Queen of Heaven' from the Litany. Would you say that's OK?
No.
Really what I meant by giving her the highest exaltation is she is the highest exalted creature.
We don't exalt Jesus, we worship Jesus, adore Him.
But Phil 2:9 says Jesus will be exalted to the highest position. Granted, it's God doing the exalting; but it still seems odd for us to give Mary our highest exultation while God gives Jesus His. It's not as troubling when you qualify it by saying she's the highest exalted created being, but how much should we exalt saints? For the moment, assume I believe Mary was born sinless and remained sinless. Did she cause herself to be born sinless? By whose power did she do the things she did and remain pure and humble? Her own? It was only by God's grace that she was the "chosen one" to bear Jesus and help raise Him. For some reason God poured more grace out to Mary than other women. Was it because of her purity, or was she pure because of His grace?
We've all seen someone down and out and said, "But for the grace of God, that could be me." Is that a true statement? Most would say yes. Can we not reverse that? When I look at someone much better off than I am spiritually, can I not say, "But for the lack of grace, that could be me."? Could God have used another woman besides Mary and poured His grace on that woman to where she would have been born sinless and remained sinless? Of course. So it appears that the RCC is exalting a woman, because God chose to use her and protect her and bless her with His grace. All the strength, power, and grace was from God. Why not praise and exalt Him instead of her?
Oh Grubb, you say she was '''''''probably'''' the most Godly woman who ever lived'. Thanks for the faint praise.
Yeah, even I'm not sure I should have put "probably" in that statement.
You equate all saints the same. You wouldn't put Mary above say Saint Thomas?
I acknowledge some saints were used more mightily by God, but I also am certain that it's only because His extra grace was poured out on them. So whether I revere Mary a little or a lot, whatever praise I give her goes straight to God. I believe that's why when we get our crowns in heaven, we joyfully and willingly lay them at the feet of Jesus.
The "accusation"?
Until you brought it up, I had honestly forgotten it. God has blessed me with a bad memory. Please forget it too. Being zealous for Jesus is good.
.
If I haven't said so already, I too understand your and the RCC's desire to revere and exalt Mary and other saints. They're great patriarchs that have done mighty things, and their examples should be an encouragement to us all. My concern is the same as Augustine's and Aquinas': when we revere people, it's very easy to go from revering to idol worship.
that last debate troubled me a lot
If it troubled you, because I was too aggressive or did or said something offensive, I apologize. If it troubled you because it made you think, I'm glad. If it troubled you, because you thought you were too aggressive, it didn't come across that way to me.
I look forward to future discussions with you.
.
Thus that intimate participation in the very life of God Himself –that participation in the divine nature – was, as yet, NOT permitted to men, but only to the good angels.
See John 8
[52] The Jews said to him, "Now we know that you have a demon. Abraham died, as did the prophets; and you say, `If any one keeps my word, he will never taste death.'
[53] Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets died! Who do you claim to be?"
[54] Jesus answered, "If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing; it is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say that he is your God.
[55] But you have not known him; I know him. If I said, I do not know him, I should be a liar like you; but I do know him and I keep his word.
[56] Your father Abraham rejoiced that he was to see my day; he saw it and was glad."
[57] The Jews then said to him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?"
[58] Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."
[59] So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple.
The day Abraham foresaw the opening of Heaven by Jesus, and so he was glad.
Randy,
The Holy Spirit really does lead the church into truth just like Jesus said. If you assume that is silly then rising to the next level will seem quite odd.
I DON'T think it's silly that the Holy Spirit leads a Christian church to discern truth. Nor do I say definitively that heavenly saints don't know what's going on here. But if a church discerns something contrary to the Bible, it is NOT led by the Holy Spirit to do so. Praying to Mary or any other saint, and them being an intercessor between God and man contradicts I Tim 2:5.
So your "pure speculation" comment is assuming a protestant viewpoint.
Since the RCC got it wrong on heavenly saints being mediators between God and man, it's reasonable to question whether they got it right on whether heavenly saints can see us or not regardless of one's viewpoint.
Grubb said: But the RCC hasn't ALWAYS taught praying to heavenly saints. They used to pray FOR heavenly saints, not TO them.
Randy replied: Not a huge difference.
It's the exact opposite! Suppose I say I'm going to give you $1,000,000 and when I realize I misspoke I say, "I meant I would like for you to give me $1,000,000...not a huge difference." Would you agree? I agree there's still a $1M transaction, but the direction of the money is in the opposite direction.
The point is we have communion with the saints. We help them. They help us.
How do we help them? According to Cyprian, they don't need our prayers.
Prior to the middle of the 3rd century we had a lot of persecution. The written record is much more sparse from that time. I would not put to much stock in the fact that a certain practice is not commented on before then.
But even in the middle of the 4th century Cyril of Jerusalem was still praying FOR heavenly saints, and Augustine was concerned with the practice leading to idolatry in the 5th century as was Aquinas in the 13th century.
.
Ben,
I love your passion. When did Abraham enter heaven? Regardless, you mention something that prevents you from ruling out the OT as an example of who to pray to...and who NOT to pray to.
Thus that intimate participation in the very life of God Himself –that participation in the divine nature – was, as yet, NOT permitted to men, but only to the good angels.
RCs pray to good angels now. People in the OT not only heard of the good angels but sometimes saw them. And when they saw them, the angels forbid humans to bow to them...curious.
(which times form the basis of your objections)
OT Patriarchs knew of angels' power and that they were messengers from God (so in that respect heaven was open to some degree), yet they still NEVER prayed to them. So my primary focus is on the NT and the early church since there were many heavenly saints and angels by the time the last books were written, but my defense against praying to heavenly saints also includes the OT since those patriarchs NEVER prayed to angels and easily could have.
.
Jonathan,
As I mentioned to Ben, heaven was opened to some degree, because angels were going between earth and heaven. And who better to mediate for me than a good angel? But they still never prayed to angels or anyone but God.
.
Hi Grubb, how do you know that the early Church never prayed to OT saints or angels? There are a number of Intertestimental writings that show that people did invoke the names of Abraham, Elijah, etc. Scripture itself records that the people mistakenly thought that Jesus invoked Elijah's name while on the cross. And from the Gospel accounts, they didn't seem to be scandalized by it or rebuked Jesus for doing so. Why not? Could it be because it was a more common practice than we present day Christians think?
And if one reads the "Shepherd of Hermas", and the writings of St. Hippolytus of Rome, St. Cyprian of Carthage, and St. Methodius, as well as Origen and Clement of Alexandria who all wrote before 300-310 AD one finds references to prayers to saints. Example:
"Hail to you for ever, Virgin Mother of God, our unceasing joy, for to you do I turn again. You are the beginning of our feast; you are its middle and end; the pearl of great price that belongs to the kingdom; the fat of every victim, the living altar of the Bread of Life [Jesus]. Hail, you treasure of the love of God. Hail, you fount of the Son’s love for man.
Therefore, we pray you, the most excellent among women, who glories in the confidence of your maternal honors, that you would unceasingly keep us in remembrance. O holy Mother of God, remember us, I say, who make our boast in you, and who in august hymns celebrate the memory, which will ever live, and never fade away.
And you also, O honored and venerable Simeon, you earliest host of our holy religion, and teacher of the resurrection of the faithful, do be our patron and advocate with that Savior God, whom you were deemed worthy to receive into your arms. We, together with you, sing our praises to Christ, who has the power of life and death, saying, ‘You are the true Light, proceeding from the true Light; the true God, begotten of the true God."
St. Methodius: Oration on Simeon and Anna 14 (cir. 300 AD).
The problem is that you perceive Scripture to be some sort of divine Encyclopedia Brittanica when it was never intended to be considered such. If you would like, I will try to get you some quotes from some of the Intertestamental writings as well.
Paul,
Interesting quote from Methodius. The article I quoted read, "Origen said praying for the dead attested to the living unity of Christians in heaven and on earth—the communion of saints. (Worship in the Early Church: Christian History, Issue 37, (Carol Stream, IL: Christianity Today, Inc.) 1997.) It appears as though Origen prayed FOR heavenly saints not TO them. And Methodius was in the 4th century which is consistent with my timeline.
The problem is that you perceive Scripture to be some sort of divine Encyclopedia Brittanica when it was never intended to be considered such.
The letters and books of the NT were written to show the Christians of their day how to live in a way that honors God. Sometimes they were encouraging, rebuking, or simply informing. Even so, they are still the best "resource" we have for how to live a God honoring life. So, yes, to some degree I view them as a spiritual encyclopedia. I've also heard the Bible called God's love letter to man since it shows us how much He loves us and how we should love Him. So to some degree I view it in that manner too. Col 3:9a says, "Do not lie to each other." The command to tell the truth is similar to what one would expect from a spiritual encyclopedia, but the principle behind it (God hates dishonesty; and do to others as you'd have them do to you) is the loving action that we get from this verse. So it's right to view the Bible as a spiritual encyclopedia (learning and following the commands) AND a love letter to show us how to love God and our neighbors better than ourselves. The 2nd portion is what prevents me from simply being legalistic.
You can provide additional inter-testament writings, but are they inerrant as the Bible is? Are they God inspired? I presume they're not or they'd have been included in the Bible, so I clearly won't put as much stock in them as I do the Bible. This is an interesting point though. Ben M. claimed that heaven was closed prior to the NT, so there was no prayer to heavenly saints like Moses and Abraham; but you claim they were praying to heavenly saints and angels prior to the NT era. (I make this next statement partly joking but partly serious) The RCC has as many disagreements as the reformed church does. But if they were praying to heavenly saints prior to the NT era, that actually supports my point: since no one in the OT or NT is ever recorded in the Bible as praying to anyone but God/Jesus, we shouldn't do it either. I Tim 2:5 tells us there's only one mediator between God and man, and the rest of the Bible affirms it by example.
.
When tradition contradicts scripture, which is wrong? We both agree the Bible is inerrant. Always has been; always will be. Can you say the same about RC traditions? Have any traditions ever been wrong or revoked? That's not a rhetorical question. So when scripture says there's one mediator between God and mankind, Jesus, and the RCC says there's another mediator, Mary, who's wrong?
.
Grubb,
Why don't you actually interact with the Catholic "one mediator" interpreation rather than just repeating yours over and over. I am impressed with you ability to bold the word "one" but it still does not mean what you want it to mean. Here is a good statment of the Catholic position:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock...92/
9209fea1.asp
Also, I still don't understand how you can see a difference between your disagreement with the church over saints and others disagreeing over gay marriage and/or female ordination. Sure it is a different person and a different doctrine but why should the principle of private interpretation prevail in one case and not the other? Just because in the one case it is your own issue and in the other it is someone else's?
Grubb,
I DON'T think it's silly that the Holy Spirit leads a Christian church to discern truth.
The Holy Spirit does not lead a Christian church to [all] truth; He leads The Christian Church; and there is only one such Church, “spread throughout the whole world.” (and note that the Holy Spirit guides the Church, not individuals). It is therefore the duty of individual believers to give their assent to what the HS has revealed to the universal (universal = catholic) Church.
Nor do I say definitively that heavenly saints don't know what's going on here.
But do you “definitively” announce the following as infallible truth?
But if a church discerns something contrary to the Bible, it is NOT led by the Holy Spirit to do so.
By definition, it is simply inconceivable that THE Church could be simultaneously guided by the HS into all truth and yet also “[discern] something contrary to the Bible.” Either the HS guides and protects the deposit of faith, or He does not.
Praying to Mary or any other saint, and them being an intercessor between God and man contradicts I Tim 2:5.
Ah, but you’re missing an important distinction:
The saints in heaven are PRAYER mediators, not REDEMPTIVE mediators.
I believe you are confusing Christianity with paganism, for what pagan god makes its creatures one with it? Or what pagan ever spoke of “reigning” with his “god,” or of “participating in the divine nature” him (or her or it)?
Protestantism, it seems, shares with the Pagans a certainly commonality of understanding in their respective notions of deity.
But God we believe in loves and honors His holy ones, and is pleased to have them care for one another. Read the Scriptures.
Let us now praise famous men, and our fathers that begat us. Sirach 44:1
Their bodies are buried in peace; but their name liveth for evermore. Sirach 44:14
Read Sirach 44:1-22
http://www.ccel.org/bible/kjv-ap...c/Sirach/
44.txt
RCs pray to good angels now. People in the OT not only heard of the good angels but sometimes saw them. And when they saw them, the angels forbid humans to bow to them...curious.
Joshua bowed down and did obeisance before an angel (Jos. 5:14).
And when Joshua was in the field of the city of Jericho, he lifted up his eyes, and saw a man standing over against him, holding a drawn sword, and he went to him, and said: Art thou one of ours, or of our adversaries? 14 And he answered: No: but I am prince of the host of the Lord, and now I am come. ( Prince of the host of the Lord, etc... St. Michael, who is called prince of the people of Israel [Daniel 10:21]. ) 15 Joshua fell on his face to the ground. And worshipping, said: What saith my lord to his servant? ( Worshipping... Not with divine honour, but with a religious veneration of an inferior kind, suitable to the dignity of his person. ) http://www.newadvent.org/bible/j
( Worshipping... Not with divine honour, but with a religious veneration of an inferior kind, suitable to the dignity of his person. ) http://www.newadvent.org/bible/j...e/
jos005.htm#14
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/...then/
10275b.htm
Lot “bowed down” before two angels of the Lord (Genesis 19:1). http://www.htmlbible.com/kjv30/i...ges/gen18-
2.jpg
Manoah and his wife “fell on their faces to the ground” as the angel of the Lord ascended in the flame of the altar. Judges 13:20 http://images.google.com/imgres?...l%3Den%26sa%
3DG
Bowing in the OT was merely a customary way of showing reverence to God, angels, or men.
Now when the sons of the prophets who were at Jericho opposite him saw him, they said, "The spirit of Elijah rests on Elisha." And they came to meet him and bowed themselves to the ground before him. 2 Kings 2:15
no one in the OT or NT is ever recorded in the Bible as praying to anyone but God/Jesus
And Manoah said unto the angel of the LORD, I PRAY THEE, let us detain thee, until we shall have made ready a kid for thee. Judges 13:15
Ha! Gottcha on a technicality!! 
But the fact of the matter is, no one in the OT or in the NT is ever recorded as privately interpreting the Scriptures either, but that minor detail doesn’t seem to bother Protestants in the least!
Now on a side note. You referenced Christian History Magazine above. http://www.ctlibrary.com/search....g+to+saints%
22+
I just happen to have an interesting (if unrelated) quote from an earlier issue (1990) of that same magazine. This issue is entitle PERSECUTION IN THE EARLY CHURCH. This is excerpted from the section on the Roman Emperor Decius (249-251).
“Although they still constituted a small minority, their efficient and self-contained organization, with no need of the state, irritated him. Consequently, Decius became the firs emperor to initiate an Empire-wide persecution of Christians, apparently one with intensity. After executing Pope Fabian he is said to have remarked, ‘I would far rather receive news of a rival to the throne than of another bishop of Rome.’”
Christian History, Issue 27, (Vol. IX, No. 3), 1990, p. 22.
http://www.ctlibrary.com/search....rone%22&x=0&
y=0
http://thumbsnap.com/v/Zw7DqsKE.jpg Contents, vol. 9.
http://thumbsnap.com/v/oLxpZydl.jpg vol. 9, p. 22.
Interesting comment if true!
Take 'Queen of Heaven' from the Litany. Would you say that's OK?
No.
Profound thing just happend. If you copy the smiley the face frowns. I mean when you highlight the smiley to copy it frowns. So when I copied what you copied from me; 'Take "Queen of heaven' would you say that's OK? 'No.' with the smiley, the smiley was frowning, sorrowful.
'It's not as troubling when you qualify it by saying she's the highest exalted created being,'
but it shouldn't be troubling AT ALL.
You write; 'It was only by God's grace that she was the "chosen one" to bear Jesus and help raise Him.'
First, I notice that you write;' to bear Jesus and HELP raise Him'. Wouldn't it be more natural to have written to bear Jesus and raise Him and miss out the 'help'.
I say this because of something Randy wrote; 'I think the mere mention of Mary's name makes you cringe. I know it did for me when I was protestant,'
Now you said you don't have a problem with Mary. But, in a sense, you have always to downgrade her. I think you would say that you dont want to exalt her too much. But my point is
that you have always to be against her. That remark about her being '''probably'' the most Godly woman that ever lived' is so revealing. And the 'help' above as well. You can't bring yourself to even say she raised Jesus but only 'helped' to raise Him.
My writing rings harder than I intend.
I was thinking in bed last night-'what was missing today? Oh yes, my daily joust with Grubb'
More
Jesus was born of Mary. He is flesh of her flesh, bone of her bone. So she is special in a unique way. She is special IN HER PERSON. Would agree she needs to be honoured in a special way?
Once again she is below God, above us. She is above us, the Apostles, the saints. She is above all human beings however holy because of Her Person.
She is below God.
She is above Elijah and Moses and everyone.
Now I am I'm not writing here about prayer to her, just where she stands with you.
So, she is the most exalted human being that ever lived. She is at THAT POINT EXACTLY. So out of 10 in exaltation she is 10.
My point; we know where we stand. Do you dear Grubb? Sometimes she seems on a on a level with the saints/ Apostles, sometimes higher. Where does she fit?
Dr Creflo Dollar (such an appropriate name); 'the fruits of the blessing are your car, your house'. Never a thought maybe your health, your children?
It's so puny Protestantism,. So puny set beside Catholicism.
I better quailfy that; some parts of Protestantism.
Just I was watching him on TV last night.
James,
First, I notice that you write;' to bear Jesus and HELP raise Him'. Wouldn't it be more natural to have written to bear Jesus and raise Him and miss out the 'help'.
To say "Mary bore Jesus and raised Him" completely dismisses Joseph, and the responsibility of teaching and training in Godliness was the Father's...still is by the way.
That remark about her being '''probably'' the most Godly woman that ever lived' is so revealing. And the 'help' above as well. You can't bring yourself to even say she raised Jesus but only 'helped' to raise Him.
First of all, I did sort of recant on Mary "probably" being the most Godly woman and explained why I phrased it that way. But my comment of her "helping" to raise him is accurate. She did do most of the raising until he was 6ish, but then Joseph probably took over to a large degree. Fathers were the head of the house and bore the responsibility of teaching Godliness to his children. That's why Eph 6:4 says, "Fathers do not exasperate your children; instead bring them up in the training and instruction of the LORD." Are mothers exempt from training and instructing their children? Not at all, but the responsibility is the Father's.
This is why it makes sense that Joseph had a bigger part in rearing Jesus than Mary did. By the time Jesus was 8 or 10 (possibly even 6), he was probably spending the entire day apprenticing with Joseph as a carpenter, and Joseph was teaching Him Godliness. In light of this, wouldn't you agree that Mary "helped" raise Jesus?
My writing rings harder than I intend.
I was thinking in bed last night-'what was missing today? Oh yes, my daily joust with Grubb'
It's not coming across as harsh to me at all. I'm enjoying the conversation.
My point; we know where we stand. Do you dear Grubb? Sometimes she seems on a on a level with the saints/ Apostles, sometimes higher. Where does she fit?
This is an interesting question. I'm going to think about it and see what the Bible has to say about the position of one human to another. I will say: in heaven her crowns, her "room" in our Father's house, and her position will far outshine mine. I'll leave it at that for now.
.
Randy (Ben, some of this will address part of your comment too),
I am impressed with you ability to bold the word "one"...
Thanks. You wouldn't believe how long I had to practice to get it right.
but it still does not mean what you want it to mean.
I'm going with the Democrat model of "If you say something enough times (however untrue it may be), people will start to believe it."
It's Friday, and Grubb's in a silly mood. I'll serious-up for now.
In the past I've claimed that I Tim 2:5 is bracketed by comments about prayer, so verse 5 is at least including prayer as part of Jesus' mediation. Since verse 4 mentions salvation, I can see why the RCC says that this mediation is simply the mediation of restoration (or of salvation) but not of intercession. But Matthew Henry said it well when he wrote,
"He that is a Mediator in the New-Testament sense, gave himself a ransom. Vain then is the pretence of the Romanists that there is but one Mediator of satisfaction, but many of intercession; for, according to Paul, Christ’s giving himself a ransom was a necessary part of the Mediator’s office; and indeed this lays the foundation for his intercession." (Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible)
Sure it is a different person and a different doctrine but why should the principle of private interpretation prevail in one case and not the other? Just because in the one case it is your own issue and in the other it is someone else's?
I didn't quite follow what you were asking here. Are you asking why it's ok for 2 churches to disagree but not 2 people? Sorry for my confusion.
.
Creflo Dollar is a nut who has horrible theology based on passages taken out of context or completely ignored. He is a Charlatan.
.
Grubb,
Don't you think being an intercessor makes you a mediator. I can think of other ways you could be a mediator but if you intercede you are mediating. So you claim we have a problem with 1 Tim 2 contradicting Catholic tradition. But the way you read it, 1 Tim 2 contradicts 1 Tim 2. That is because in the very context in which Paul makes this statement he commands us to intercede for others.
So the mediation that Paul is talking about is something different. Not everything that could broadly be called mediation is unique to Jesus. We can and must do some of that as well.
Saying that Paul is somehow banning the idea of asking a saint to intercede for you is an even bigger stretch. You not only stretch the passage to contradict the context but then you push the conclusion even further into areas Paul is not addressing at all. It is what James Akin call the technical statement fallacy. Assuming Paul is using terms precisely like in a scientific paper rather than just using normal speech like you would in a letter.
As far as the private interpretaion issue goes. You said that someone who wants to break with tradition on the issues of gay marriage and/or female ordination was doing something different than what you are doing on the issue of saints. I just don't see it. You are rejecting the traditional interpretation of scripture based on your personal judgment. That is exactly what they are doing in those other areas.
But Matthew Henry said it well when he wrote,
"He that is a Mediator in the New-Testament sense, gave himself a ransom. Vain then is the pretence of the Romanists that there is but one Mediator of satisfaction, but many of intercession; for, according to Paul, Christ’s giving himself a ransom was a necessary part of the Mediator’s office; and indeed this lays the foundation for his intercession." (Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible)
And Matthew Henry is just flat out wrong. He interprets salvation in terms of paying a ransom to God's justice, which we have already discussed extensively. This concept cannot be taken literally but only metaphorically. The real mechanism for salvation articulated in the Bible and repeated in the ecumenical councils is the assumption of human nature by the Word of God, suffering death and being resurrected, thus providing a path to salvation of all humankind in Himself. That is why He is the Mediator of the New Covenant, because He quite literally mediates between the human and the divine nature in Himself through His own life. That is the unique mediation of Christ.
There would be a contradiction only if we were asserting that Mary or the saints were divine by nature. But we clearly are not. Likewise, the unique mode of priestly intercession in the Epistle to the Hebrews pertains directly and explicitly to the Word's assumption of human nature. It is abundantly clear that the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as intercessor and mediator always pertains to His assumption of the human nature as the God-man.
Because Henry, a Protestant, has a poor understanding of Christology and the mechanism of salvation, he decries "Romanism." But this "Romanism" is no different than Orthodoxy, which is no different than the faith of the Fathers, the faith once delivered to the Saints. It is the Christian faith, plain and simple, that says that the unique intercession of the Son is His assumption of the human nature. Even sinlessness, perfect obedience to the divine will, could not accomplish this. Only the actual unity with the divine nature could do it.
Hey Grubb, quick questions:
Does Christ continue His mediatorial function between the pure and holy souls in heaven and the Father? And if so, Why? I mean, what need have perfectly pure and sinless creatures of a mediator?
Just like to hear your take on this.
Randy,
You said that someone who wants to break with tradition on the issues of gay marriage and/or female ordination was doing something different than what you are doing on the issue of saints. I just don't see it. You are rejecting the traditional interpretation of scripture based on your personal judgment. That is exactly what they are doing in those other areas.
First of all, I didn't say someone wanting "to break with tradition on the issues of gay marriage and/or female ordination" was doing anything wrong. I say people who contradict the Bible on these issues are doing something wrong. Big difference.
There are no instances of people praying to heavenly saints or angels in scripture. So when I say praying to heavenly saints shouldn't be done, I'm not contradicting scripture.
There ARE instances in scripture where homosexuality is condemned. So if someone says homosexual marriages are ok, He IS contradicting scripture.
You don't see a difference in those 2 situations? One contradicts scripture and one doesn't. It's that simple. Homosexuality doesn't contradict MY interpretation of scripture, it contradicts scripture. Lev 18:22 says, "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable," and I Cor 6:9-10 says, "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." Those passages aren't usually misinterpreted; they're usually ignored.
You tried to equate the RCC's "interpretation" of scripture with scripture itself, but they're not the same. I understand you believe the RCC to be infallible with regard to doctrine, but I don't. So from your perspective, you think I'm being contradictory; but from a reformed perspective, I'm making perfect sense.
Whether you agree with me or not, I trust you at least understand the difference between the two situations as the Reformed church sees it.
Ben,
Sorry I've been so slow to respond to your comment on Friday. Sometimes work gets in the way. I'll try to get to it this week.
As for your shorter comment, my off the top of my head reply would be: no, once someone is perfected and the relationship permanently restored, there's no need of a mediator. But I Tim 2:5 isn't referring to perfected beings, is it?
.
Grubb,
But I Tim 2:5 isn't referring to perfected beings, is it?
Are you suggesting that I Tim 2:5 does not apply to the sinless souls in heaven?
no, once someone is perfected and the relationship permanently restored, there's no need of a mediator.
That would be a nice summary of why Catholics accuse Calvinists of being Pelagian. The idea that it is possible for human beings NOT to need a mediator is foreign to the Christology of the Fathers. Perhaps more importantly for your way of thinking about it, it directly contradicts the Scriptural witness that Jesus "is able for all time to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them" (Hebr. 7:25). The mediatorship is eternal, just as salvation is eternal.
Jonathan,
The ESV Bible says, "Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them." (Heb 7:25) First of all, this sounds like it supports the once saved always saved doctrine. Secondly, "always lives to intercede for them" may very well be referring to earthly saints and not heavenly saints. Why will Jesus be interceding for us once we're in heaven? Doesn't He intercede on our behalf now for our needs and our sins? Will we be needful and sinful in heaven?
Paul said in I Cor 13:12, "Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror, then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known." What need of an intercessor do we have when we see God face to face and know Him fully?
.
Hi Grubb,
As for your shorter comment, my off the top of my head reply would be: no, once someone is perfected and the relationship permanently restored, there's no need of a mediator. But I Tim 2:5 isn't referring to perfected beings, is it?
So if I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that, since the saints in heaven are perfected beings, they no longer have any need of a mediator between God and themselves, and thus 1 Tim 2: 5 no longer applies to them?
But, if 1 Tim 2:5 no longer applies to them, how can it then form the basis of your objection to asking these same sinless saints to pray for us? After all, you seem to be saying that they now enjoy perfect unmediated access to the Father!
Another question: Notice that, 1 Tim 2: 5 says,
“there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”
Does not this passage simply indicate that Christ’s mediation is between God and men not (based on this passage) between saint and saint?
In other words, isn't it true that nothing in this passage actually prohibits saints from petitioning ( or "praying to" if you will) other saints, whether such saints happen to be alive here on earth, or filled with eternal life in heaven?
And finally, despite the fact that the saints in heaven are now utterly sinless, can they not nevertheless say, just as the sinless Mother of God said so long ago, “My soul rejoices in God my savior?”
In other words, being sinless and yet still speaking of God as one's savior are not mutually exclusive concepts, wouldn't you agree?
Hello again Grubb,
I know you're probably busy, but did you get time to ponder my question; 'Sometimes she seems on a on a level with the Saints/ Apostles, sometimes higher. Where does she fit?'
Commenting by HaloScan
