Combox for:
Open Forum
[2 June 2008]
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...open-
forum.html
http://www.archive.org/stream/
a5...7237300darbuoft
J.N. Darby's critique of John Henry Newman's Apologia --
I am amazed that no one has made any comments on this. He makes some really great points.
Newman asserts that there is no middle ground between Catholicism and Atheism. If that is true, then he did not have faith at all when an Anglican, for that is a middle ground (via media) -- he did not have peace or assurance, because there was actually no faith in Christ Himself as the truth as a real encounter with the Living God. His doubts and skepticism drove him to want an external authority and assurance from the structure, and system of RCC; it seems.
copying what I wrote before; seems to have been missed.
Darby's analysis of Newman is very good and interesting.
(see link in above post)
I have made it to page 36. There is much to say, but I will post the main point so far that he makes.
Newman wrote in the Apologia -- talking about probabilities and doubt and the search for assurance -
“. . . I believe in a God because I believe in myself.”
Quoted on P. 32, Darby’s critique, Newman’s Apologia, p. 199.
Newman asserts that there is no middle ground between Catholicism and atheism. But if that is true; then he did not have the truth in his heart or the person of Christ as his Savior and Lord before he became a Roman Catholic. His doubts and skepticism and lack of assurance drove him to get some kind of feeling of comfort in an external system of authority and history, and that system is all here on planet earth in the external, visible church, the Roman Catholic Church, with its priesthood and ex opera operato and Marian dogmas and practices and mediators and statues and icons, etc. The drive is wanting something to feel, touch; like the same drive that causes people to want icons, ceremonies, structure, Latin masses; holy water; relics, statues, prayers to mediators between Jesus and oneself.
Darby: “Either before joining Rome, he possessed Christian truth, or did not. If he did, his position is false; if he did not; anyone can understand why he turned catholic. He had nothing. Nor indeed did he arrive at anything. He came to authority, not faith in any truth.” P. 32
p. 31 “no medium between atheism and Catholicity” --
Continued from the previous open forum:
Grubb,
Congrats on the baptisms!
You may want to exercise some unity with your RC brothers; many are saying that the Jews DID pray to the patriarchs.
Ah, but unity is preserved! So now, tell me, who says the Jews prayed to patriarchs?
Coincidentally, no one wants to address that: how I Tim 2:5 says there's only one mediator of salvation, yet the RCC claims Mary is the co-mediator of all graces (salvation is definitely a grace).
Well, do you believe that God uses human instruments to dispense his graces and to accomplish his will?
I've pointed out the fact that both the OT and NT are silent on praying to heavenly saints and angels. You agree the OT was silent, because heaven wasn't open to man. You haven't addressed why they refused to pray to angels even though they knew angels traveled between God and men.
But Grubb, so what? There’s no record, either in the OT or NT, of anyone starting his own synagogue / church, or of exercising the “right” of private judgment, and yet you seem completely unperturbed by that fact.
Ken,
We honor Mary as she really is; more that you do, because we honor her in the right way -- according to Scripture.
Strange kind of honor indeed, that she, who is the perfect model of holiness, should never so much as even be mentioned in Protestant circles! (My Protestant friend practically goes into a frenzy at the very mention of her name; its truly bizarre, if not demonic! He just cannot tolerate to speak of her. Maybe I should do a hidden camera gig and post the vid just to prove my point!). 
We believe in the virgin birth; but she was not perpetual virgin; she had a normal marriage after Jesus was born and the fact that Jesus had brothers and sisters proves this. Matthew 1:18-25 and 12:46-50 and 13:55-58 prove this.
If Mary had other children, where are their memorials? Why is there no mention of them in Paul’s epistles? Why do none of the early Christians reference to them? One would think that those who were the flesh and blood brothers and sisters of Christ would have been an invaluable source of information about Christ himself, and for that reason alone would have played a prominent role in the early life of the Church. But there’s no such record of them anywhere! Only silence.
I Timothy 2:5-6 is clear that Christ is the only mediator between sinful man and God
And Ken wrote:
…prayers to mediators between Jesus and oneself.
Well, first of all, 1 Tim shows that Christ is an eternal mediator.
And yes, He is the mediator between God and man. But 1Tim says nothing one way or the other about “mediators” between Christ and members of his body.
After all, Christians, because we too are sacrificing priests, we also share in Christ’s priesthood, in his glory. We reign with Him! We become partakers of His divine nature.
In any event,
In any event, this passage applies only to the saint’s relationship to the Father, not to the unbreakable bonds of unity which exist among the members themselves and their head.
And let's not forget that the saints too are ever becoming like God and, in a very real sense, are Christ.
Augustine:
“What Christian, again, is unaware of what he quotes the most blessed Xystus, bishop of Rome and martyr of Christ, as having said, God has conferred upon men liberty of their own will, in order that by purity and sinlessness of life they may become like God?” - On Nature and Grace, ch. 77.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers...athers/
1503.htm
Mary confessed her need for a savior, Luke 1:47
So do all the blessed and sinless souls in heaven, and so shall they always.
The sinless saints will always have need of Him. And even if in this life, were it possible for one to obtain to such a state of blessedness (with God’s grace), one would still say with the blessed Virgin, “My soul rejoices in God my savior.”
But one wonders why all this fretting over that which, in your opinion, goes “beyond the Scriptures, violates I Cor. 4:6; … is definitely shown to be false, wrong, and gives the appearance of idolatry…?” What ever happened to “guaranteed salvation?”
Let’s allow Luther to instruct us for the moment (my emphasis):
“You say that the sins which we commit everyday offend God, and therefore we are not saint. To this I reply: Mother love is stronger than the filth and scabbiness on a child, and so the love of God toward us is stronger that the dirt that clings to us. Accordingly, although we are sinners, we do not lose our filial relation on account of our filthiness, nor do we fall from grace on account of our sin.
“You object that we are always sinning, and where there are sins the Holy Spirit does not dwell; therefore we are not saints because the Spirit sanctifies. I reply: The text says, ‘The Spirit will glorify me’ (Jn 16:13, 14). Therefore, where Christ is, there is the Holy Spirit also. Besides, sins do not separate Christ from the sinners who believe. The God of the Turks helps only to the extent that one is godly. This is also true of the pope’s God, but when a papist begins to doubt, as he must, that he has made enough satisfaction, he becomes alarmed. Such is the faith of the pope and the Turks. But the Christian says: I believe and cling to him who is in heaven as a Savior. If I fall into sin I rise again but continue to sin. I rise up and become the enemy of sin. Thus the Christian faith differs from other religions in this, that the Christian hopes even in the midst of evils and sins. Without the Holy Spirit natural man can’t do this. He can only see refuge in works. To say, ‘I am a child of God,’ is accordingly not to doubt even when good works are lacking, as the always are in all of us. This is so great a thing that one is startled by it. Such is it magni
This is so great a thing that one is startled by it. Such is it magnitude that one can’t believe it.”
– Table Talk, Forgiveness of Sin Is Hard to Believe. Early in the year 1533, No. 437. From the notes (aufzeichnungen) of Veit Dietrich (1506-1549).
Luther’s Works, American Ed., vol. 54, p. 70. ISBN 0800603540
http://books.google.com/books?id...%22&lr=0%22&
lr=
Correction!!
This:
"If I fall into sin I rise again but continue to sin,"
should actually be:
"If I fall into sin I rise again but don't continue to sin."
Didn't want to get pinned down under heavy fire for erring on this one!
Ben,
Thanks for the congrats my cyber-friend.
On 5/28/08 at 5:19 Jordanes posted a comment in the previous Open Forum with the following in it.
(Grubb) It's possible the men who started this tradition came from a tradition (before they were Christians) where praying to angels and ancestors was acceptable.
(Jordanes) Not only is it possible, but that is exactly where Christianity derived its tradition of praying to angels and saints -- from prior Jewish tradition, as magnified and purified by Jesus and the apostles. In the time of Christ, it was common for Jews to invoke angelic aid, and it was believed that the righteous dead prayed for us here below.
That seems contradictory to heaven being closed.
Well, do you believe that God uses human instruments to dispense his graces and to accomplish his will?
Which graces? The grace of salvation? God allows us to co-labor with Him, but in the end all I can do is lead someone to the point of salvation. Only God gives salvation to a man.
But Grubb, so what? There’s no record, either in the OT or NT, of anyone starting his own synagogue / church, or of exercising the “right” of private judgment, and yet you seem completely unperturbed by that fact.
Not so. Individuals and leaders were commended for discerning whether a teaching was right or not. "Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." (Acts 17:10) As for starting a new church, at least there's some Biblical merit to it. The reformers tried to reform the RCC, but ultimately it would not be reformed.
Paul tells us, "But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. 'Purge the evil person from among you.'" (I Cor 5:11-13 ESV) Now if it's the church leadership who is corrupt, I can't purge them from the church, they won't reform, and I'm called not to associate with them (not even to eat with them), what are my options? Starting a new church seems the best and possibly only alternative.
.
Jonathan,
They were being martyred because they refused to commit idolatry. For them to then turn around and commit idolatry would be bizarre in the extreme.
Biblically, idolatry was clearly something that was of such fundamental concern that errors were rare, and the prohibition on idolatry was so well-engrained that it barely had to be repeated in the Bible
I presume (as you do) they wouldn't knowingly commit idolatry. But Calvin said, "The human heart is an idol factory (or, factory of idols)." I know you don't put much stock in Calvin, but even a blind squirrel finds a nut.
He was probably right on the mark with this comment. Even if we don't mean to, we often develop something we think is good and then put our trust in IT rather than God. Life insurance comes to mind. Retirement accounts do too. Who do you trust to provide for your family after you die or retire, you or God?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting either is inherently evil or an idol, but both can become an idol even to solid believers if they're not careful. So it can be with praying to heavenly saints. Maybe the 2nd century catacomb guy guarded his heart very closely but didn't realize subsequent generations wouldn't. Maybe that's why previous generations never prayed to heavenly saints or angels nor were encouraged to do so; because God knew what an idol it could become. God knew the best means of preventing people from making heavenly saints into idols would be to prevent us from praying to them and have us pray only to Him.
In the Grubb house, we aim for what's best. Don't always hit it, but it's what we aim for. That's what God does too (except he always hits His mark). He wants the best for us. And when Jesus taught us to pray, He taught us the BEST way...directly to God.
I have no idea how anyone who understands the Christian faith can think that Judaizing is worse than idolatry.
Judaizing can become an idol. Simply thinking one has to be circumcised is one thing, but believing one MUST be circumcised as part of salvation reduces Christianity to a works based religion and renders the cross insufficient. Judaizing essentially becomes an idol, because people would put their trust in their own ability to be circumcised or eat or abstain from certain foods. That's why Judaizing can be as bad as idolatry; because it can become idolatry.
.
I don't understand what the point of saying "Even I would agree..." is when my point is quite emphatically that I do not agree with the assertion
My question was, "Which is worse, praying to heavenly saints or requiring circumcision or abstaining from certain foods as part of salvation?" I wasn't clear enough on this. I was asking this question from your perspective (the perspective that says praying to heavenly saints -- if done rightly -- is ok). I wasn't trying saying "You agree with me on something I know you don't" but rather pointing out that Peter and others did something worse than the 2nd century catacomb dweller. They taught (either by word or example) that Judaizing was acceptable to the point of misleading some.
That's why we consider your suggestion so offensive, as if we could just stumble into something so perverse.
But people DO stumble into things so perverse all the time. THAT'S why we need the Bible and a Godly church who holds to the teachings of the Bible. My examples of life insurance and retirement plans are the perfect example. There's nothing wrong with saving up money for hard times, but people have gotten to the point where they HAVE to have a year's salary saved up by the time they're 30, or they HAVE to have a 1.5 million dollar life insurance policy in case they die. These things can be good, but if acquiring either at the expense of serving God in some way (like tithing or giving sacrificially to missionaries), IT has become an idol, because one is trusting in himself rather than in God to provide.
Praying to heavenly saints is the exact same. It can start out with a very guarded heart, but in a short while one can start depending on the angels and saints rather than on God. That's why I believe God prevented His people from praying to heavenly saints and angels from the very beginning.
.
Jordanes,
No he wasn't. He was teaching that they WEREN'T required for salvation, but on that one occasion he acted as if they were required for salvation.
We teach by our actions as well as our words. And Peter's example led Barnabas astray. But, yes, I misspoke when I insinuated he was going around to all the churches teaching it.
(Grubb) You may want to exercise some unity with your RC brothers; many are saying that the Jews DID pray to the patriarchs.
(Jordanes) I haven't met any who have said that, but of course just because some Catholic holds an opinion, that doesn't make it a Catholic belief.
On 5/28/08 at 5:19 you posted a comment in the previous Open Forum with the following in it.
(Grubb) It's possible the men who started this tradition came from a tradition (before they were Christians) where praying to angels and ancestors was acceptable.
(Jordanes) Not only is it possible, but that is exactly where Christianity derived its tradition of praying to angels and saints -- from prior Jewish tradition, as magnified and purified by Jesus and the apostles. In the time of Christ, it was common for Jews to invoke angelic aid, and it was believed that the righteous dead prayed for us here below. (bold added by Grubb)
You said the Christian tradition of praying to heavenly saints came from the Jewish tradition of praying to the patriarchs and angels. That contradicts Ben's assertion that heaven was closed.
(Grubb) That notwithstanding, heaven may have been closed to man, but it wasn't closed to angels. The patriarchs never once prayed to an angel,
(Jordanes) That you know of, that is.
It's certainly not recorded in the Bible. It seems something as important as that would have at least gotten an honorable mention. We haven't heard of someone doing something for 4000 years, so we're going to assume it's the right thing to do. That's a pretty low standard, don't you think? It's probably better to say, we haven't heard of someone doing it for 4000 years, so we're not going to do it either...there's probably a reason some of the Godliest men who ever lived aren't recorded as having done it.
If it is acceptable to ask saints for their aid,...
It's not.
.
I presume (as you do) they wouldn't knowingly commit idolatry. But Calvin said, "The human heart is an idol factory (or, factory of idols)." I know you don't put much stock in Calvin, but even a blind squirrel finds a nut.
But in point of fact, it isn't true. In the sense that all sin is a form of idolatry, then we are all sinners and thus idolators. But there certainly isn't anything natural about it; it is unnatural. So you don't go around expecting people to naturally work evil, particularly Christians with proved evidence of great faith.
Who do you trust to provide for your family after you die or retire, you or God?
Both. You're talking like the guy on his roof in a flood who tells the helicopter to go away because he is waiting on God to save him. Your provision for yourself is God's provision for you. Most people are not called to extraordinary poverty; they are supposed to take care of themselves by the sweat of their brow. Working to provide for yourself IS putting your trust in something that God gave you. It's Calvinist disdain for nature , rather than regarding it as good for what it is, that creates this sort of trouble. God and nature are not opposed; there is no natural tendency to make natural goods into idols.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting either is inherently evil or an idol, but both can become an idol even to solid believers if they're not careful. So it can be with praying to heavenly saints.
So can anything. Do we then become suspicious of every human activity? Do we need Scriptural guidance on every mundane activity? Besides, you've conceded the point here that praying to heavenly saints can be permissible, so you've accepted the burden of showing when it isn't.
Maybe the 2nd century catacomb guy guarded his heart very closely but didn't realize subsequent generations wouldn't. Maybe that's why previous generations never prayed to heavenly saints or angels nor were encouraged to do so; because God knew what an idol it could become.
And maybe if a pig had wings he would fly. The Bible also has choice words for people who make up teachings to fit what their ears are itching to hear, so think hard on speculating wildly on what God was thinking when He didn't say it.
God knew the best means of preventing people from making heavenly saints into idols would be to prevent us from praying to them and have us pray only to Him.
Then He could have said so. You yourself say that we should stick to Scripture, so where does Scripture entertain this speculation? You yourself say that praying to saints is sometimes permissible, so if it was so critical, then why didn't He provide any Scriptural guidance on this subject?
In the Grubb house, we aim for what's best. Don't always hit it, but it's what we aim for. That's what God does too (except he always hits His mark). He wants the best for us. And when Jesus ta
(cont.)
In the Grubb house, we aim for what's best. Don't always hit it, but it's what we aim for. That's what God does too (except he always hits His mark). He wants the best for us. And when Jesus taught us to pray, He taught us the BEST way...directly to God.
He also taught us to pray in the one Body created by the Spirit, of which the Saints are part. So when we take the whole counsel of Scripture on the subject, you are leaving out part of what it lays out as the best way, so it doesn't seem to me that you are trying to reach the Scriptural ideal. Scripture doesn't disdain prayer in the communion of the Saints, even though it does ALSO commend prayer to God with the Our Father. This would be like taking Matthew's instruction to pray in private as a prohibition on public prayer with Christians.
That's why Judaizing can be as bad as idolatry; because it can become idolatry.
You can say the same thing about any form of sin. Obviously, this form of "idolatry" is not so serious as worshipping the wrong god.
I wasn't trying saying "You agree with me on something I know you don't" but rather pointing out that Peter and others did something worse than the 2nd century catacomb dweller. They taught (either by word or example) that Judaizing was acceptable to the point of misleading some.
Only because you seem to be bizarrely willing to excuse the ignorance of the 2nd century catacomb dweller. If what they did was borderline idolatrous, then they should have known the risks, and they should not have done this. What they did would have been far worse than teaching Judaizing, which could far more easily have been error or mistake rather than idolatry even by your own argument. I would consider making a mistake on worshipping only God more serious even than deliberately teaching Judaizing doctrine.
But people DO stumble into things so perverse all the time. THAT'S why we need the Bible and a Godly church who holds to the teachings of the Bible.
Then one would expect far more guidance. The Bible doesn't mince words on other evils, so why do we view with suspicion a practice that the Bible never mentions and appears by all accounts to be in line with the spirit of numerous Bible passages? What is not forbidden is assumed to be permissible.
My examples of life insurance and retirement plans are the perfect example.
Indeed. They are examples of how extreme your position has become. You find evil and idolatry under every rock. By this argument, every natural good is suspect. But people are supposed to enjoy and trust in what God has given them. How on earth can you be thankful for these things as God's blessings when you are so suspicious of them that you have to guard your heart against them?
It can start out with a very guarded heart, but in a short while one can start depending on the angels and saints rather than on God. That's why I believe God p
(cont. x2)
It can start out with a very guarded heart, but in a short while one can start depending on the angels and saints rather than on God. That's why I believe God prevented His people from praying to heavenly saints and angels from the very beginning.
You have no evidence here, particular in someone who has true faith in God alone can "in a short while ... start depending on the angels and saints rather than on God." There are plenty of people who are foolish, ignorant, or superstitious who were looking for magical assistance from angels and saints in the first place, but the enormous evidence in the lives of the holy men and women themselves is that those who have true faith in God are more likely also to revere the Saints themselves, and this deepens their faith and connection to the Body of Christ as a compliment to their individual prayer. This suspicion of the practice of holy men and women, equating it with the practice or the foolish, ignorant, and unfaithful, is unseemly.
It's certainly not recorded in the Bible. It seems something as important as that would have at least gotten an honorable mention.
Only if there was a reason to mention it. The Bible by and large leaves matters to individual discretion when there doesn't appear to be confusion in the audience.
We haven't heard of someone doing something for 4000 years, so we're going to assume it's the right thing to do. That's a pretty low standard, don't you think? It's probably better to say, we haven't heard of someone doing it for 4000 years, so we're not going to do it either...there's probably a reason some of the Godliest men who ever lived aren't recorded as having done it.
First, there's a theological reason for why this practice would NOT have been permissible in the OT. Their worship was not Christian worship, so the theological justification for venerating holy men and women in Christ was not apparent or revealed yet. We venerate the holy men and women of the Old Testament in retrospect, but when they were in the bosom of Abraham in Sheol, they were not yet part of the Body of Christ.
Second, within the two millennia of the Christian era, it is absolutely ubiquitous to the point of being dogmatized in an ecumenical council. This cuts against your position. You were better off basically saying that unless something is done in the Bible, it isn't permissible, but given the number of things that aren't mentioned in the Bible (say, electric lighting), that's a silly argument to begin with.
still, no one has commented on Darby's critique of Newman's Apologia!
Amazing!
http://www.archive.org/stream/
a5...7237300darbuoft
Darby: “Either before joining Rome, he possessed Christian truth, or did not. If he did, his position is false; if he did not; anyone can understand why he turned catholic. He had nothing. Nor indeed did he arrive at anything. He came to authority, not faith in any truth.” P. 32
p. 31 “no medium between atheism and Catholicity” --
Newman asserts that there is no middle ground between Catholicism and atheism. But if that is true; then he did not have the truth in his heart or the person of Christ as his Savior and Lord before he became a Roman Catholic. His doubts and skepticism and lack of assurance drove him to get some kind of feeling of comfort in an external system of authority and history, and that system is all here on planet earth in the external, visible church, the Roman Catholic Church, with its priesthood and ex opera operato and Marian dogmas and practices and mediators and statues and icons, etc. The drive is wanting something to feel, touch; like the same drive that causes people to want icons, ceremonies, structure, Latin masses; holy water; relics, statues, prayers to mediators between Jesus and oneself.
“Either before joining Rome, he possessed Christian truth, or did not.
Typical Protestant false dichotomy, what Father Louis Bouyer and others have identified as the tendency of Protestants to think in terms of "either/or" instead of "both/and."
It's possible to have some, or a lot, of Christian truth and yet to not have all of it.
If he did, his position is false; if he did not; anyone can understand why he turned catholic. He had nothing. Nor indeed did he arrive at anything. He came to authority, not faith in any truth.”
Another false dichotomy: faith versus authority, as if it is possible to come to authority without having faith in authority.
Newman asserts that there is no middle ground between Catholicism and atheism.
Obviously. The law of noncontradiction establishes that the propositions "God exists, and the Catholic religion was divinely revealed by Him" and "God does not exist" cannot both be true.
But if that is true; then he did not have the truth in his heart or the person of Christ as his Savior and Lord before he became a Roman Catholic.
What a humongous non sequitur. This Darby fellow couldn't reason his way out of wet paper bag. Cardinal Newman wasn't an atheist before his conversion to Catholicism -- he was an Anglican Christian.
that system is all here on planet earth
If it's not here, then how are the inhabitants of the earth supposed to be saved? Did Jesus come down from heaven and land on Neptune? Is it up in the heavens, that we should say, "Who shall go up into the heavens to get it for us and tell us of it, that we may carry it out?" Is it across the sea, that we should say, "Who will cross the sea to get it for us and tell us of it, that we may carry it out?" No, it is near to us, even in our mouths and in our hearts, here on earth -- we have only to carry it out.
The drive is wanting something to feel, touch; like the same drive that causes people to want icons, ceremonies, structure, Latin masses; holy water; relics, statues, prayers to mediators between Jesus and oneself.
Yes, I too have a drive to have a doorknob between me and the outdoors -- something to feel, to touch, so the door can be opened and I can have access to Jesus who is standing at the door and knocking. We Catholics want sacraments and sacramentals the way people want doors and windows in their houses.
You said the Christian tradition of praying to heavenly saints came from the Jewish tradition of praying to the patriarchs and angels. That contradicts Ben's assertion that heaven was closed.
No, I didn't mention any Jewish tradition of praying to patriarchs and angels. As you can see from reading what I wrote, I mentioned the Jewish custom of invoking angels, and I mentioned the Jewish belief that the saints could and did pray for us, not that the Jews prayed to the saints.
His doubts and skepticism and lack of assurance drove him to get some kind of feeling of comfort in an external system of authority and history, and that system is all here on planet earth in the external, visible church, the Roman Catholic Church, with its priesthood and ex opera operato and Marian dogmas and practices and mediators and statues and icons, etc. The drive is wanting something to feel, touch; like the same drive that causes people to want icons, ceremonies, structure, Latin masses; holy water; relics, statues, prayers to mediators between Jesus and oneself.
And that's more or less the difference between Protestantism and Catholicism. Catholics think we should believe for concrete reasons; Protestants think we should believe for no reason.
This is just basic Aristotelian metaphysics. What you cannot feel, touch, or sense in some way, you don't actually know. There is a word for pretending to know something apart from the senses. That word is "imagination." Protestants believe in an imaginary religion; Catholics believe in a real one.
I can't fathom the perversity in thinking that wanting to believe for some reason as opposed to blind faith is the wrong approach. Apparently, in Protestantism, your own personal emotion is the only reliable guide. For people who decry the alleged idolatry of Catholics and espouse total depravity, they sure aren't hesistant to make their subjective opinion divine.
The more years I listen to this, the more I am convinced that Protestant theology has the same roots as astrology and New Age gobbledygook. Just make up the religion that makes you feel good and supposedly in tune with God, and forget whether it has anything to do with reality.
Hi Ken,
still, no one has commented on Darby's critique of Newman's Apologia!
Well, my friend, that’s kinda hard to do when one is left speechless!
I mean, good heavens, Ken, this man is out of his reason! One scarcely knows how to respond to such inanities and misrepresentations. So I’ll therefore just ask the saintly Augustine to speak to this Darby fellow:
“My advice to you now is this: that you should at least desist from slandering the Catholic Church.” – On the Moral of the Catholic Church, 34:76. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers...athers/
1401.htm
Hi, Grubb,
Thanks for the congrats my cyber-friend.
Your welcome my cyber-friend!
Which graces? The grace of salvation? God allows us to co-labor with Him, but in the end all I can do is lead someone to the point of salvation. Only God gives salvation to a man.
Quite true! Only God gives salvation (so we actually agree!). But who says grace cannot be, as it were “distributed” (and yes, I am fully cognizant of the nearly insurmountable difficulties which the subtleties and nuances of language can pose here ). Nevertheless, I boldly maintain that, when St Paul said,
“I long to see you so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong," - Father Paul to the Catholics at Rome, 1:11
he really did intend to (again mindful of the linguistic difficulties) “mediate” God’s grace!
But now just because Fr. Paul wished to “impart” grace i. e., “some spiritual gift” to the Catholic Church in Rome, in no way implies he was the source of grace. Again, he is merely a “mediator” of it (but now, we’re harking back to this whole business of the “whole Christ,” which must wait for, perhaps, another time).
Individuals and leaders were commended for discerning whether a teaching was right or not.
Ah yes! And this is precisely why we commend and recommend the holy and learned Fathers and Doctors! For it is they who hold the correct interpretation of Scripture and traditions of the apostles. They are the witnesses to the true faith:
“But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth." Acts 1:8
“You,” not a book, shall be my witnesses! And so the Holy Fathers have been!
But which “teaching” do you refer to? Those arrived at through private interpretation or those proposed for belief and acceptance by a living teacher?
Now if it's the church leadership who is corrupt, I can't purge them from the church, they won't reform, and I'm called not to associate with them (not even to eat with them), what are my options? Starting a new church seems the best and possibly only alternative.
Well, there will always be corrupt individuals in the Church, just as there will always be saints. So what? If you break away and start a new “church,” you’ll only transfer the same problems t
Well, there will always be corrupt individuals in the Church, just as there will always be saints. So what? If you break away and start a new “church,” you’ll only transfer the same problems to the new “church.” So clearly, that is not the ‘solution.’ And there is not an iota of Scriptural warrant for such sacrilegious schism!
“Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.” Matt 23:1-3
”So you must obey them!”
Nothing here about starting a new church, indeed, nothing in any of the sacred writings about starting a new church. But what does blessed Cyprian say?
“Whence it appears, that all are adversaries of the Lord and antichrists, who are known to have departed from charity and from the unity of the Catholic Church. In addition, moreover, the Lord establishes it in His Gospel, and says, ‘But if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto you as a heathen man and a publican.’” Matthew 18:17
"But if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto you as a heathen man and a publican."
[Do you hear that, dear friend?]
“In fine, how inseparable is the sacrament of unity [the Eucharist], and how hopeless are they, and what excessive ruin they earn for themselves from the indignation of God, who make a schism, and, forsaking their bishop, appoint another false bishop for themselves without, — Holy Scripture declares … that the Lord was very angry, and gave them up to perdition, because they were scattered from unity...” – Cyprian of Carthage, letter 75. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers...hers/
050675.htm
You know, Grubb, there’s a “new” (i.e. non- papist) church close to where I live whose members consist mostly of, shall we say, less than orthodox "Christians" (but God forbid that the sinner Ben should so much as even think to judge these poor souls!). So I wont name names or give details (you can use your imagination) but I will say that the most of the “gentlemen” in this “church” (which claims to go only by the bible) might well identify with the following song by the adorable – heartthrob, heartthrob! - but sadly, sometimes sleazy, Shania Twain. Alas). Ah, but what can an incurable romantic say? Surely love conquers all! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q...h?
v=Qns6Dt3McgQ
"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." (Acts 17:10)
Two components here:
a. They “received the message with great eagerness.”
“Great eagerness.” Notice their love for oral tradition. How different this is from Protestant contempt!
b. They “examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.”
The Bereans compared the Scriptures with “what Paul said” i. e., with the
b. They “examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.”
The Bereans compared the Scriptures with “what Paul said” i. e., with the teaching they had “received,” not with their own opinions.
So the infallible and final teaching authority here is the one Church, represented in the person of St. Paul. And apart from the apostles (who represent the Church’s living teaching authority), the Scriptures are never seen as sufficient in and of themselves.
There is simply no “private interpretation” here or anywhere else in scripture, Grubb.
And who can ignore this passage?
“Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, ‘Do you understand what you are reading?’ And he said, ‘Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?’ And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.” Acts 8:30-31
Gotta go now. Gotta get ready for an important court appearance out of town on Thursday (nothing serious, thank God!) But I do hope all goes well. Also, need to renew my drivers license (six month late), but because I'm legally blind in one eye, I dont know if I'll pass the vision test this time. So for those reasons, I ask everyone within cyber-ear-shot of this combox to pray that everything works out ok.
With thanks, dear friends.
Later my most fellow gators!
Oh, and one final thing.
Just how may "robots" can dance on the head of a pin?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/
rele...80602133313.htm
Actually, Darby makes a pretty good point, that if Newman's opinion is true, "there is no medium way between RCC and atheism"; then, don't you see that he is taking Newman at his word, for the sake of argument, and that means that he did not have Christ before as an Anglican; for his hypothesis is that there is no middle ground. It is either RCC all the way or atheist, infidelity, unbelief.
Darby (nor I) would agree with Newman's assessment; rather he is analyzing his thought -- he is showing how he can see how he would become RC, because he had no peace or assurance. The skepticism and repeat of "probabilities" runs all through his argument; he wanted more. He wrote, "How can I know I am safe?" (I am summarizing) or "How can I know I am in the right church, that will give me safety, repose, peace, and salvation?" (as if a physical, visible church is the ultimate key to peace and safety and salvation) No; that is why Luther was so powerful; faith alone, trust alone in Christ alone; apart from the merit of any works that we do; realizing that sin has separated me from God (Isaiah 59:1; Romans 3:23) and my only hope is Christ, His death, His resurrection. Romans 10:9-10. Romans 3:28, Galatians 2:16, Galatians 2:21; Ephesians 2:8-10; Acts 15:9 "cleansing their hearts by faith".
Newman's struggle and restlessness and skepticism shows how weak the Scriptures, the Spirit, and the Anglican church was for him, in his own experience.
And that's more or less the difference between Protestantism and Catholicism. Catholics think we should believe for concrete reasons; Protestants think we should believe for no reason.
Why do you say we have no reasons? We believe based on historical and biblical evidence, archeology, the empty tomb, the existence of the church, though imperfect and fallible and over time allowed false doctrines in; the martyrdom of the apostles and saints and the roots of the same history of the Early church and creed and four councils that you do. Most of all, we believe the Word of God, the Scriptures; and the Spirit confirms this in our hearts. Romans 8:16; Galatians 4:6-7.
No. We have lots of valid and good reasons and evidence. You are wrong.
Most of all, we believe the Word of God, the Scriptures; and the Spirit confirms this in our hearts. Romans 8:16; Galatians 4:6-7.
It's that "Spirit confirms this in our hearts" part that you have no reason to believe but "liver shivers." That has no connection to the historical and Biblical evidence about the existence of Christ, His Resurrection, and the like. Indeed, given the evidence of what you accuse of being a "imperfect or fallible" church that "allowed false doctrines in," you have ample reason NOT to believe the "liver shivers." You have absolutely no reason to believe the Word of God is the Word of God, no cause at all to accept its authority, but you do anyway. If that isn't purely subjective irrationalism, then I have no idea what is.
No; that is why Luther was so powerful; faith alone, trust alone in Christ alone; apart from the merit of any works that we do; realizing that sin has separated me from God (Isaiah 59:1; Romans 3:23) and my only hope is Christ, His death, His resurrection. Romans 10:9-10. Romans 3:28, Galatians 2:16, Galatians 2:21; Ephesians 2:8-10; Acts 15:9 "cleansing their hearts by faith".
Yes, easy answers as a response to intellectual laziness are always a tempting out. They make you feel good. This is just reinforcing my point, BTW.
Jonathan, no doubt you would not appreciate or put up with Protestants imputing all the worst features of popularized, theologically ignorant, superstititously fetishized Catholicism to Catholicism simpliciter and concluding that the whole religion itself is a lot of irrational rubbish without any intelligible foundations. Why then, do you do the same to Protestantism? Protestantism isn't all of a piece anymore than Catholicism is.
I understand that Dave's site is an apologetics site and that as such it has to deal with whatever opposition comes its way, but sheesh. People who seriously study the Reformation in its actual context and spend significant time tracing out the declination of its ideals as the Enlightenment took the world by storm can readily come to understand that the baptistic and Fundamentalistic stuff that regularly attacks Catholicism in the name of "Protestantism" and the Reformation is NOT Protestantism.
It has been said that the preeminent so-called "Calvinist" preacher Charles Spurgeon admitted that Baptists do not take their origins from the Reformation, but pretend to have always existed in the background of history. Baptistic "Protestants" may use many of the same terms as the Reformation did (sola Scriptura, sola fide, etc.) but they profoundly redefine all of them in ways that the Reformers themselves would not have accepted. Baptistic "Protestantism" is a misnomer, and anyone who imputes the doctrines of the Baptist Faith or of Fundamentalism to the Reformation is simply theologically and historically ignorant.
Jonathan wants to speak of intellectual laziness of those he's fighting here, but frankly, there's a whole lot of that on the Catholic side on this issue as well. You guys need to get your crap together and stop demanding accuracy of Protestants toward Catholicism if you won't demand the same of yourselves toward Protestantism. If you want to fight the Reformation, fight the Reformation and not this uncritical and semi-gnostic subjectivistic baptistic redefinition stuff. Just because 7 or 8 of every 10 professing "Protestants" is a baptistic Fundamentalist doesn't mean you are engaging real Protestantism when you engage them.
By all means do your apologetics against the Baptists. But don't pretend that by refuting Baptist theology you have refuted Protestant theology. You haven't even touched it. Baptists are not Protestants. They occupy a place on the same spectrum of spiritualistic and rigorist error as the Donatists, the Petrobrusians, the Waldensians, the Cathars, the Mormons, and the Liberalism of Schleiermacher.
Gee; learn something every day:
1) Baptists aren't Protestants.
2) Baptists are not legatees of the "Reformation" -- even though their predecessors the Anabaptists have just as much claim as "reformers" as the magisterial Luther and Calvin do. Their self-anointed "authority" is essentially no different than Luther's and Calvin's and Zwingli's and Cranmer's.
3) Ken Temple is not a Protestant. What is he, then? Does he believe in a salvific soteriology and can he be saved by believing as he does? Does he have the gospel, etc.? Can he at least be called a Christian? This is as dumb and imbecilic as anti-Catholic reasoning.
4) Ken Temple and Baptists are on a spectrum of error with Cathars (who were radical Gnostics) and liberals. This smacks -- quite ironically -- of extremist, fringe Landmarckian Baptist positions, based on historical ignorance (pretending that various historical religious groups are like them).
Wow! I must say that I completely side with Ken on this one. This is absolutely ridiculous. Tim must have had something put into his drink (or maybe he's off his meds?).
I totally agree that Reformed Baptists are quite different in many ways than Calvin, but not so different that they can't even be classed as Protestants or distanced entirely from the scattershot movement known as the "Reformation."
By the way, I disagree with some of Jonathan's characterizations of Protestantism, too (much as I always respect his intellect and insights, even if I disagree on individual points). He is generally far more critical and sweeping in his condemnations than I am. I don't feel a need to always point that out on this blog, but occasionally I will note it.
When has Tim Enloe ever successfully defended anything, anyway? He wants to bloviate on and on about the true "Reformation" and function as its legitimate (self-appointed and self-anointed) "spokesman"? He doesn't allow comments on his blog; he runs or insults every time someone dares to question his dogmatic conclusions; he assumes a snobbish elitist pseudo-intellectual attitude (recently expressed yet again towards me in a pathetic manner, in the "Reformation Theft" thread) . . .
At least Ken has the courage of his convictions and will argue his case, and has the guts to come here to do so. I think, many times, he does it badly and fallaciously (as in the current relics thread), but he does at least have enough self-confidence to argue a position and stand his ground, unlike Tim, who never does so (he merely sanctimoniously preaches and then whines, insults, and flees for the hills at any hint of ungrateful opposition).
Claiming that Ken is closer to a Cathar than a Protestant is absolutely outrageous, and he is owed an apology, in my opinion.
Isn't it funny how I, a Catholic, am defending a Baptist against brain-dead charges from a so-called "Reformed Catholic" that he isn't even a Protestant? This goes beyond religious controversy to simple sociological categories and self-serving, tunnel vision distortions of same.
Jonathan,
God and nature are not opposed;...
Agreed.
...there is no natural tendency to make natural goods into idols.
I don't want to get too far from the prayer to saints and Mary as co-mediator conversation, but whether you call it natural or unnatural is splitting hairs. Maybe it's not how we were naturally made to be, but every one of us has created multiple idols in our lives.
So can anything. Do we then become suspicious of every human activity?
Yes. Augustine said the goal is to love the right thing, in the right way, with the right kind of love, to the right degree. That's why Solomon said, "Above all else, guard your heart, for it is the wellspring of life." (Prov 4:23) Why would we have to guard our heart so carefully if we didn't have such a propensity to sin and create idols? Samuel said to Saul, "For rebellion is like the sin of divination, and arrogance like the evil of idolatry." (I Sam 15:23a) In other words, when we arrogantly think WE'RE the ones providing for our family and not God, we approach idolatry.
The Bible also has choice words for people who make up teachings to fit what their ears are itching to hear, so think hard on speculating wildly on what God was thinking when He didn't say it.
So who's more in danger of this: the man who adds a doctrine that's not in the Bible (you, since praying to heavenly saints & angels isn't in the Bible), or the man who does more closely what the Bible says (me, since I don't pray to heavenly saints & angels as they didn't in the Bible)? Prov 30:5-6 says, "Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar." The RCC, not Grubb, is adding words when it teaches praying to heavenly saints. I'm just sticking to what the words that are already there say.
(Grubb) God knew the best means of preventing people from making heavenly saints into idols would be to prevent us from praying to them and have us pray only to Him.
(Jonathan) Then He could have said so. You yourself say that we should stick to Scripture, so where does Scripture entertain this speculation?
He DID say so! You just refuse to hear it.
When they asked Jesus how to pray, did He say, "Our Father, or angel, or Moses who is in heaven..."? God knew the difference between the OT & NT and how heaven would and wouldn't be open, and that would have been the perfect time to discuss it, but He didn't. That should tell you a great deal, but you won't listen. They asked Him point blank how to pray, and He told them.
He gave us 4000 years of examples and never once encouraged us to pray to anyone but Him. Every time a godly man prays in the Bible, he prays to God.
.
You have no evidence here, particular in someone who has true faith in God alone can "in a short while ... start depending on the angels and saints rather than on God."
You have read the Old Testament, haven't you? After the Israelites escaped Pharaoh at the Red Sea, how long before they literally created an idol? A few weeks, possibly a couple of months. After they had wandered in the desert for 40 years and trusted in God for everything, how long before the children in the Promised Land grew up not knowing God? One generation.
And Paul said in I Cor 10:6-12, "Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did. Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written: 'The people sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in pagan revelry.' We should not commit sexual immorality, as some of them did—and in one day twenty-three thousand of them died. We should not test the Lord, as some of them did—and were killed by snakes. And do not grumble, as some of them did—and were killed by the destroying angel. These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come. So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don't fall!" There are plenty of examples.
A couple of months...that's all it took for people who had become whole-hearted trusters of God for everything after fleeing Pharaoh to create an idol. The 2nd century catacomb dweller was in fear of his life, but the Israelites' lives were in danger for 40 years from snakes, enemies, angels, starvation, and God's anger, and they were derailed in the 1st generation in Canaan. Do you still believe people in a catacomb couldn't go astray after a short period? If you do, you're ignoring the very examples Paul told us not to ignore.
The Bible by and large leaves matters to individual discretion when there doesn't appear to be confusion in the audience.
There was no confusion, because no one was praying to heavenly saints or angels.
First, there's a theological reason for why this practice would NOT have been permissible in the OT. Their worship was not Christian worship, so the theological justification for venerating holy men and women in Christ was not apparent or revealed yet. We venerate the holy men and women of the Old Testament in retrospect, but when they were in the bosom of Abraham in Sheol, they were not yet part of the Body of Christ.
If the RCC didn't support praying to angels, your argument might make more sense. Are you now venerating the angels when they didn't for 4000 years? Was heaven closed to angels then, and it isn't now? No. We know they were going between heaven & earth for 4000 years, but godly men never once prayed to them.
.
Jordanes,
So you would agree there's no examples or instances of anyone praying to angels or heavenly saints in the Bible?
.
Why then, do you do the same to Protestantism? Protestantism isn't all of a piece anymore than Catholicism is.
I take the point, and I actually share your opinion that the Anabaptists were an extremist spiritualist movement as compared to the magisterial Reformation that probably shouldn't be taken as indicative of the historical motives for the Reformation. They were pretty much tagging along for the Reformation in the same way the Spiritual Franciscans maintained a kind of extremist minority within Catholicism. That does share features with other extremist holiness movements like the Donatists and others you mentioned.
Here's my problem with what you said, and it's a problem that has ultimately resulted in my continuing ability to understand Protestantism. I agree that the motivations for those movements differs from the motives for the Reformation in degree, although I would dispute whether it is a difference in kind. In any case, I don't understand is why there is a continuing motivation for any of those things. The Reformation might have been an adequate explanation for why there was a Reformation THEN, but why now?
If you think that you are entering a Third Age in which the Holy Spirit will transform the world (and the moribund Christian life of the Church) through the exceptional holiness of inspired individuals, then I understand this whole conciliarist/people of God/priesthood of believers impulse. But I've gotta say that looking at what the Reformation produced, particularly in contrast (and conflict) with the Fathers, I ain't impressed. What in history makes you trust these people? What suggests that they were guided by the Spirit in contrast with the Fathers and the Saints?
I'm not saying that the popes were saints. Far from it! But the Saints were saints, and I saw literally zero men on the side of the Reformation who attained to that sort of Spirit-led holiness or accomplished any good thing for the people of God as a whole. Protestantism had learned men, but no one as fervent in the defense of traditional Christian dogma as Bellarmine or More or de Sales, even apart from the doctrine of the papacy.
All I'm saying is that when I look at the record, I see absolutely no reason in principle to be a Protestant and no historical witness to match the Saints of Orthodoxy or Catholicism. So I genuinely don't understand why anybody is one. And this has been baffling to me for my entire life, even before I reverted to Catholcism and even when I wasn't particularly religious. Since I see no reason, I must chalk it up to some sort of subjective feeling or emotion or something other than reason, because I've spent years in vain trying to find anything else. I don't think it is necessarily a fickle or meaningless emotion or a lack of genuine experience, but it isn't the sort of thing that can be confirmed or articulated in any way.
I just don't understand it. I can't be any more p
(cont.)
I just don't understand it. I can't be any more plain than that.
So you would agree there's no examples or instances of anyone praying to angels or heavenly saints in the Bible?
No clear or explicit examples, yes. But then, in accordance with biblical teaching, Christianity does not base its beliefs and practices solely on the Bible, but on every revealed Word of God that was received from Jesus and the Apostles and handed on to the Church through the bishops, the successors of the Apostles. And nothing in Scripture or Tradition teaches that Christians may not ask their brothers and sisters to obtain divine help for them. Quite the contrary, it indicates that it is foolish and un-Christian not to do so.
And we have the angels in heaven and what many commentators think are dead human beings ("24 elders") offering the prayers of the saints to God in Revelation 5:8 and 8:3-4. We have dead men praying for those on earth in Rev 6:9-10.
The indirect argument is pretty compelling, I think:
1) We ask others to pray for us.
2) Those who die in Christ are still alive and part of the Body of Christ too.
3) Saints in heaven are aware of earthly events.
4) We see them praying for us in at least one instance in the Bible.
5) The prayer of a righteous man avails much.
6) Saints are perfected in holiness and sanctity.
7) Therefore their prayers would have much power.
Ergo, we can ask them to intercede to God for us.
The same would apply to an angel: a creature that had never fallen. The Bible certainly shows that angels are aware of earthly events and care about us, too.
Actually, Darby makes a pretty good point, that if Newman's opinion is true, "there is no medium way between RCC and atheism"; then, don't you see that he is taking Newman at his word, for the sake of argument, and that means that he did not have Christ before as an Anglican; for his hypothesis is that there is no middle ground. It is either RCC all the way or atheist, infidelity, unbelief.
Neither you nor Darby are representing Cardinal Newman accurately, nor are you applying sound logic and reason. It does not follow that just because Catholicism and atheism cannot both be true, therefore anyone who is not a Catholic is an atheist. Nor does it follow that just because someone does not believe "all" of the things that Jesus revealed, therefore one does not have faith in "any" of the things that Jesus revealed.
This is such elementary logic that one can only be embarrassed for anyone who would seriously propose such fallacious argumentation.
However, it does follow that if one is not going to accept all that Christ revealed, then one may as well not accept any of it. As St. James said, if you break one commandment, it's the same as breaking them all.
If you or Darby don't agree with that, then you'll have to take it up with the Holy Spirit, who inspired St. James to write what he wrote.
Yes. Augustine said the goal is to love the right thing, in the right way, with the right kind of love, to the right degree. That's why Solomon said, "Above all else, guard your heart, for it is the wellspring of life." (Prov 4:23) Why would we have to guard our heart so carefully if we didn't have such a propensity to sin and create idols? Samuel said to Saul, "For rebellion is like the sin of divination, and arrogance like the evil of idolatry." (I Sam 15:23a) In other words, when we arrogantly think WE'RE the ones providing for our family and not God, we approach idolatry.
It seems to me that every argument you make comes to a logical conclusion, and then you conclude by saying exactly the opposite. Your point here is that anything can be made into an idol. Wonderful; I agree. That is exactly the reason you should NOT expect the Bible to tell you to provide an exhaustive list of what you can and cannot do. That's why it says to guard your heart, because bad desires can make anything into an evil in more ways than the Bible could possibly address specifically. By that reason, the practice of venerating saints doesn't produce idolatry unless you have a disordered desire that causes you to do so, which has been my point all along. Why is that so difficult?
After the Israelites escaped Pharaoh at the Red Sea, how long before they literally created an idol? A few weeks, possibly a couple of months. After they had wandered in the desert for 40 years and trusted in God for everything, how long before the children in the Promised Land grew up not knowing God? One generation.
And Paul said in I Cor 10:6-12, "Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did.... So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don't fall!"
Think about how illogical what you are saying is. Paul is instructing Christians to watch out, which clearly implies that he believes that they can, and you are citing an example of Christians who were doing what they were supposed to do by refusing to commit idolatry. They aren't like the fickle Israelites who turned away; they are the people who demonstrated fidelity under duress. So you're saying that these Christians were the ones you expect to be like the *fickle* Israelites rather than the ones who did not bend the knee to Ba'al? THIS is what you learn from the Old Testament? I think you need to re-read it.
A couple of months...that's all it took for people who had become whole-hearted trusters of God for everything after fleeing Pharaoh to create an idol.
Yes, and you're saying that the Christians who refused to be fickle under persecution were the same ones who were bowing the knee to Ba'al. Think for a minute about how crazy that is in light of the Old Testament. Were the people who were faithful under persecution and temptation EVER on the wrong side?
That's why I think you'
(cont.)
That's why I think you're completely flying out of reality here. This would be like Moses gathering the remnant and then turning around to worship the golden calf with them as a celebration. The fact that he didn't do it is WHY he was in the remnant, just as the fact that the Christians didn't slip into idolatry is why they had to hide in the catacombs to avoid being killed, so it doesn't make any sense that at the exact moment he is shown as remaining faithful, he lapses into evil.
There was no confusion, because no one was praying to heavenly saints or angels.
No one was using flush toilets or automoibles either. Maybe we should all be Amish. If a practice isn't specifically condemned, it should be permissible; it's that simple.
If the RCC didn't support praying to angels, your argument might make more sense. Are you now venerating the angels when they didn't for 4000 years? Was heaven closed to angels then, and it isn't now? No. We know they were going between heaven & earth for 4000 years, but godly men never once prayed to them.
Haven't we been through this? The rationale for venerating saints and venerating angels is the same, and neither of them were known until Christ. It's not just the incorporation of Saints into the Body of Christ but the revelation of Christ Himself that provides the rationale. Before that, people wouldn't have had the knowledge necessary to venerate angels either, since they were often identified with God Himself. That's why John twice errs in trying to worship an angel in Revelation; he is still in Old Testament mode, because he is only just then receiving revelation about how Christ sums up all things in Himself.
What does it mean to "pray"?
pray
–verb (used with object)
1. to offer devout petition, praise, thanks, etc., to (God or an object of worship).
2. to offer (a prayer).
3. to bring, put, etc., by praying: to pray a soul into heaven.
4. to make earnest petition to (a person).
5. to make petition or entreaty for; crave: She prayed his forgiveness.
6. to enter into spiritual communion with God or an object of worship through prayer.
–verb (used without object)
7. to make entreaty or supplication, as to a person or for a thing.
[Origin: 1250–1300; ME preien < OF preier ≪ L precārī to beg, pray, deriv. of prex (s. prec-) prayer; akin to OE fricgan, D vragen, G fragen, Goth fraihnan to ask]
Given the wide range of definitions, what does it mean for a Catholic to "pray to the angels and saints"? Well, it doesn't mean definition 1 or 6. It means definition 4, 5 or 7. We are called to pray with one another (where two or three are gathered in My Name, etc.) and for one another, and even for those who aren't Christian.
But is there any place in the Bible where angels (or saints, for that matter) are addressed in an entreaty, an exhortation to join with someone in prayer? Please go to Psalms 130 and 143. In both, King David addressed the angels and all the Heavenly hosts to join in his prayer of praise to God. He specifically used the term "angels" in both places.
The Psalms aren't just pretty songs; they contain prophesy, example, and instruction, and they are one long succession of prayers. David prayed for help, deliverance, forgiveness, and more, and he also prayed in thanksgiving. It is in his thankful prayers that he calls on the angels and the hosts to join with him, as if they are all one family in their love for God.
That is what the saints and angels are: those who are in Heaven and can intercede to Christ on our behalf. A sinful man who repents but still struggles with sin here on earth will be heard, but as James wrote in his letter, chapter 5, it is the fervent prayer of a righteous man that is very powerful. He cited the example of Elijah, whom he called nothing more than a man, who was able to bring on and alleviate a severe drought by the efficacy of his prayers.
When we pray to the angels and saints, we do not offer the same type of prayer we give to Christ; we in essence ask them the same thing we'd ask of a fellow Christian here on earth. To a Catholic, the saints aren't dead. They are perfectly alive in the Presence of God, able to see Him face to face, and their prayers, like Elijah's, are very powerful because God wills it to be that way.
Yours in Christ,
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that there is no explicit instruction in the Bible to pray to the Holy Spirit, or even to Jesus Christ.
Grubb cited the "Our Father" as the model of how we ought to pray, taught by Jesus himself, but this prayer is to the Father alone.
There are passages in the New Testament about Jesus Christ that many exegetes believe are hymns. Phil 2:6-11 and Col 1:15-20 are examples. But these speak of Christ in the third person; they don't address him.
And I know that Paul and others instruct us to pray "in the Spirit" and say that the Spirit will aid us in our prayers, but they never instruct us to pray TO the Spirit. Or at least I can't think of any instances where they do.
We are also told to invoke the name of Jesus Christ as an advocate or mediator with the Father. But the idea here appears to be that we should invoke his name while praying to the Father, rather than praying to him.
In short, if we were to apply Grubb's and Rev. Temple's principle that we should only pray as the Bible instructs us to, then we should never pray to Jesus or the Holy Spirit, but only to the Father in the Spirit and in the name of Jesus.
In other words, the same rationale that is used to argue against praying to saints and angels applies as well to prayers to Christ and the Holy Spirit: Neither is explicitly taught in the Bible.
But maybe I've overlooked something. Can Grubb or Rev. Temple (or anyone else) adduce New Testament prayers to Christ and the Holy Spirit?
Baptists are not Protestants. They occupy a place on the same spectrum of spiritualistic and rigorist error as the Donatists, the Petrobrusians, the Waldensians, the Cathars, the Mormons, and the Liberalism of Schleiermacher.
Wow; Tim; pretty harsh! I see how Baptists have some similarities with Donatists,
some also with Waldensians, and Cathars; (I will take your word on these two groups; I know of them, but don't know them that well except what I have read in church history surveys; nothing deep. I honestly don't remember what their distinctives were; except that they were considered heretics by the Roman Catholic Church.)
but not the others, Baptists have nothing much in common with Mormons or Schleirmakers Liberalism -- that is just untrue and a goofy statement; and a major insult.
Never heard of the "Petrabrusians". You have a lot of knowledge.
I remember some of your early articles, before your "Reformed Catholicism" days; that I printed out and were very helpful that used to be at Eric Svendsen's site with Jason Enweger's articles. they were good.
4) Ken Temple and Baptists are on a spectrum of error with Cathars (who were radical Gnostics) and liberals. This smacks -- quite ironically -- of extremist, fringe Landmarckian Baptist positions, based on historical ignorance (pretending that various historical religious groups are like them).
Thanks Dave. I need to go back and read up on what the Cathars believed. If they are what you say; then I take back what I said and Baptists are not like them.
So, only in some aspects there are some similarities to Donatists and Waldensians; and only those two; and only in some aspects.
Can Grubb or Rev. Temple (or anyone else) adduce New Testament prayers to Christ and the Holy Spirit?
Adoman,
Yes! off the top of my head, there is one I can think of immediately -- to Jesus- Acts 7:59-60 -- "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!'
I will try to adduce more later.
Since Jesus is Lord - I Cor. 12:3 and the Holy Spirit is called "Lord" in 2 Cor. 3:17 and the doctrine of the Trinity teaches that each person of the God is God; then it biblically and logically follows that there is nothing wrong with praying "Lord Jesus" and "Spirit of the Living God, fall afresh on Me, mold me, make me, fill me, use Me" ,etc.
Since all three persons of the Trinity are God; and prayers and worship are to God; then prayers addressed to the Son and the Spirit are fine.
But since Mary and the saints are NOT God; prayers and praises to them are not right; in fact wrong; and unBiblical.
Presbyterian minister Tim Keller has a great article on
"All of Life is repentance"
http://www.greentreewebster.org/
...0Repentance.pdf
""But in the gospel the purpose of repentance is to repeatedly tap into the joy of our union with Christ in order to weaken our need to do anything contrary to God's heart."
well said.
one of Luther's best legacy's is his 95 theses and his first point that repentance is all of life.
Adoman,
Here is another prayer to Jesus adduced:
Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."
Luke 23:42
Here is what the Cathari or Albigensians believed:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/
2...rotestants.html
For the less radical (but still by no means "Protestant" Waldenses), see:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/
2...rotestants.html
Here is another prayer to Jesus, adduced:
Rev. 22:20 -- the last sentence, "Come Lord Jesus"
He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming soon."
Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.
Prayer to Jesus:
JOHN 14:14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do {it}.
1 CORINTHIANS 1:2 . . . with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, . . .
Prayer to the Holy Spirit (indirect proof):
ROMANS 8:26-27 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. (27) And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what {is} the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to {the will of} God.
If the Holy Spirit intercedes for us, and He is God (thus omniscient and able to hear our prayers), we can pray to Him.
1 CORINTHIANS 2:10 But God hath revealed {them} unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
Ken:
Adoman,
Yes! off the top of my head, there is one I can think of immediately -- to Jesus- Acts 7:59-60 -- "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!'
Adomnan: This doesn't really qualify as a prayer. Stephen was dying, and he saw Jesus waiting for him: "Stephen, filled with the Holy Spirit, stared at the heavens and saw the glory of God and Jesus standing at God's right hand." (Luke 7:55) Thus, his command to Jesus -- "receive my spirit" is in the imperative mood -- is no more a prayer than Paul's exchange with Jesus Christ on the road to Damascus was a prayer or David's conversation with the spirit of Saul was a prayer.
Moreover, what Stephen said here was a command, in the imperative mood, not a prayer or request. Grammatically, he is telling Jesus to receive his spirit, not asking him. Since he can't actually command Jesus, Stephen is simply expressing a wish or expectation in the form of a command.
Father Joseph Fitzmyer writes in his commentary on Acts: "As the dying Jesus confided his spirit to the Father (Luke 23:46), so Stephen confides his to Kyrie, Iesou (Lord Jesus), thus firmly expressing his faith in Christ."
Ken: Adoman,
Here is another prayer to Jesus adduced:
Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."
Luke 23:42
Adomnan: This one doesn't work at all, Ken. Jesus was still alive when this was said. It doesn't count as a prayer in the sense we've been discussing. If it did, then any conversation between two living people, at least if it involved a petition, would qualify as a "prayer."
Ken: Here is another prayer to Jesus, adduced:
Rev. 22:20 -- the last sentence, "Come Lord Jesus"
He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming soon."
Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.
Adomnan: I don't think this qualifies as a prayer either. It's a variation of the Aramaic "Maran atha," which means "the Lord is coming" and is sometimes understood as "Marana tha," that is, as a command: "Lord, come!" In either case, as with the prayer of Stephen, this is a desire or expectation expressed as a command, a common enough rhetorical device.
So none of these short utterances qualifies as a prayer. There's certainly nothing comparable to the Lord's Prayer addressed to the Father in your examples.
Conclusion: The Bible probably doesn't contain contain any prayers to Jesus, and it appears to have nothing like a prayer to the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the Bible does not instruct us to pray to either of these divine persons, but only to the Father. And so prayers to Jesus and the Holy Spirit are extra-Biblical, just as are prayers to saints and angels.
Dave,
I acknowledged in my initial post that the Bible instructs us to pray in the name of Jesus Christ, but that is not the same as praying TO Jesus Christ.
"Call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" may mean "invoke the name of Jesus Christ when praying to the Father."
Re the Holy Spirit : The Bible frequently teaches that the Holy Spirits assists us when we pray, but that is not the same as praying to the Spirit.
Just to make myself clear: I am Catholic and have no objection to praying to Jesus Christ and to the Holy Spirit. My point is that prayer to these divine persons is not explicitly taught in the Scriptures and thus has the same foundation in the tradition of the Church as does prayer to saints and angels. Both forms of prayer can find considerable biblical support, but neither is explicitly taught in the Bible.
My aim in presenting this argument is to counter the notion, put forth by Grubb and possibly supported by Ken, that we are only to pray in ways that the Bible explicitly instructs us to. This would preclude prayer to Jesus and the Holy Spirit, but Protestants like Grubb and Ken do pray to Jesus and the Holy Spiirt. Thus, they are caught in a contradiction.
I understand the argument and why you are using it. Even if one concedes that there is some data about this, it is still very subtle, and your argument would substantially hold.
Grubb,
If the RCC didn't support praying to angels, your argument might make more sense.
Oh nuts!
Grubb, there’s no mystery here, no true theological difficulty. It is only from a contempt (inherited, not from the Scriptures, but from your anti-Christ predecessors – Luther, Calvin,…) of such as are spoken of below that you and virtually all of our Protestant brethren seem to be perpetually incapable of grasping, of perceiving, even the rudiments of the beauty of undivided truth in all its fullness.
If you cannot tolerate even milk, how can you hope to digest meat? But nevertheless, I still beg you, if you will be so kind, to hear from that great lover of the apostolic See of Rome, St. Augustine.
“Hear now ... the customs and notable continence of perfect Christians, who ... practise the height of chastity, … For who does not know that there is a daily increasing multitude of Christian men of absolute continence spread all over the world…?
“I will say nothing of those to whom I just now alluded, who, in complete seclusion from the view of men, … enjoying communion with God, to whom in purity of mind they cleave, and most blessed in contemplating His beauty, which can be seen only by the understanding of saints.
“… But to discuss this point would take long, and would be fruitless; FOR IF A MAN DOES NOT OF HIS OWN ACCORD REGARD THIS HIGH PITCH OF SANCTIY AS ADMIRABLE AND HONRABLE, HOW CAN OUR SPEAKING LEAD HIM TO DO?
“Only the Manichćans … should be reminded that the abstinence and continence of the great saints of the Catholic Church has gone so far, that some think it should be checked and recalled within the limits of humanity
“But if this is beyond our tolerance, who can but admire and commend those who, slighting and discarding the pleasures of this world, living together in a most chaste and holy society, unite in passing their time in prayers, in readings, in discussions, without any swelling of pride, or noise of contention, or sullenness of envy; but quiet, modest, peaceful, their life is one of perfect harmony and devotion to God, an offering most acceptable to Him from whom the power to do those things is obtained?
“… These fathers are not only more saintly in their conduct, but also distinguished for divine learning, and of high character in every way; … [and] for while they make no effort to obtain abundance, they make every effort to prevent their abundance remaining with them,— so much so, that they send shiploads to places inhabited by poor people. I need say no more on a matter known to all."
On The Moral of the Catholic Church http://www.newadvent.org/fathers...athers/
1401.htm
Now a question to my Protestant friends:
There is nearly an entire book (albeit small – like a mustard seed) in the New Testament devoted almost exclusively to the praise of saints.
Which one is it?
Dave,
Neither Rev 5:8 or Rev 8:3-4 suggest they're praying for us. All it says is that the prayers of the saints (not heavenly saints) are as an incense to God and they were holding that incense.
The indirect argument is pretty compelling, I think:
1) We ask others to pray for us.
Agreed. I Tim 2:1 encourages us to do so.
2) Those who die in Christ are still alive and part of the Body of Christ too.
But you're not sure which people on earth were true believers. Isn't it possible for a canonized saint to actually be in hell? Matt 7:22 says, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?" Some who appeared to dedicate their lives to Jesus and even did miracles may actually have been evil doers in their heart.
3) Saints in heaven are aware of earthly events.
That's speculation. Heb 12:1 isn't literal and Rev 6:9-11 only suggests they know judgment hasn't occurred...nothing else.
4) We see them praying for us in at least one instance in the Bible.
Where?
5) The prayer of a righteous man avails much.
Tru dat.
6) Saints are perfected in holiness and sanctity.
But we're not assured they can even see or hear us.
7) Therefore their prayers would have much power.
Is a righteous person's prayer super-charged, or is it that he generally prays more in accordance with God's will?
8 ) Ergo, we can ask them to intercede to God for us.
Too many of steps 1-7 are questionable and Biblically unsound to accept #8.
.
Dave: I understand the argument and why you are using it. Even if one concedes that there is some data about this, it is still very subtle, and your argument would substantially hold.
Adomnan: Yes, you pointed out a passage that comes closest to authorizing prayer to Jesus: John 14:13-14. However, it seems there are textual variants. In some the Greek of John 14:14 says, " If you will ask me anything in my name, I will do (it)." But others omit "me," and still others have "If you will ask the Father anything in my name, I will do it."
Raymond Brown has a remark on this in one of his commentaries on the Gospel of John: "All that is needed is prayer in Christ's name, a theme familiar to the Synoptics (although only John has Jesus Himself answering the prayer; normally we hear of the Father answering the prayer through Christ''s intercession)."
And then there's the separate question of prayer to the Holy Spirit, of course.
Jonathan,
By that reason, the practice of venerating saints doesn't produce idolatry unless you have a disordered desire that causes you to do so, which has been my point all along. Why is that so difficult?
I understand your point, and that same point is true of every other Christian "deed" we do that can become an idol. When we create idols, it is the result of a disordered desire or heart. I think we agree on that. But some things can lend themselves more to becoming an idol than others. There's no problem with saving money for retirement, and doing so can even be a godly deed by preparing for the future when we can't work as we do now and to prevent us from burdening others. Serving the poor is another godly deed we can do. Which of these two do you think is more prone to becoming an idol? Both can, but the money issue is more likely to become an idol, because it deals with trusting God versus trusting our own ability to provide. Don't you agree? Praying to heavenly saints would be another issue that (even if it was Biblical) would be more prone to idolatry than other things.
Plus, this is only PART of my defense against praying to heavenly saints. It was by no means my main point which is why I didn't want to spend too much time on it.
So you're saying that these Christians were the ones you expect to be like the *fickle* Israelites rather than the ones who did not bend the knee to Ba'al?
So your assumption is that no one who risks death by refusing to offer incense to a false god could ever commit idolatry? Then why does Paul say, "So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don't fall."? (I Cor 10:12) Satan is crafty and can even deceive strong Christians if we're not careful.
Think for a minute about how crazy that is in light of the Old Testament. Were the people who were faithful under persecution and temptation EVER on the wrong side?
Are you suggesting EVERY person who wandered in the desert for 40 years with Moses was "fickle"? They were persecuted and tested just as the catacomb dwellers were, yet the 1st generation that grew up in Canaan didn't know the Lord!!
so it doesn't make any sense that at the exact moment he is shown as remaining faithful, he lapses into evil.
This is a decent point. My counter is, he didn't have a copy of the Bible with him and hadn't been instructed on this issue, so he wouldn't have necessarily known he was doing wrong.
.
No one was using flush toilets or automobiles either. Maybe we should all be Amish. If a practice isn't specifically condemned, it should be permissible; it's that simple.
This may be your weakest argument so far. Splitting off and starting a new church isn't specifically condemned in the Bible. Marrying a 5 year old and having relations with her isn't specifically condemned in the Bible. An average guy having more than one wife isn't specifically condemned in the Bible (remember, it was only deacons, elders, and bishops who were required to have but one wife). Is that REALLY what you want? There are so many things that aren't specifically condemned in the Bible that we know to be wrong based on other things that ARE in the Bible.
Indoor plumbing, cars, planes, plastic, and many other modern inventions aren't spiritual topics, so there's no reason to look to the Bible for guidance on them. Besides, if cleanliness is next to godliness, I'm sure the ECFs would have been in favor of toilets. Praying (and to whom we pray) IS a spiritual matter, and the Bible DOES address it.
.
Hi Grubb,
I have a million papers on the communion of saints, so I won't repeat all those arguments here. I summarized them.There is much more biblical support for all points, though of course, never enough to satisfy a Protestant with unreasonable, unbiblical sola Scriptura demands.
Imperative form does not always mean strict "command" in context. Sometimes is is an exhortation and sometimes a request. Stephen could not "command" Jesus to receive his spirit; rather, I do think it qualifies as a prayerful requests to the one who sits at the right hand of the Father.
Dave added lots of good other verses for this; good arguments for praying to the Son and the Spirit also -- excellent.
We found something to agree on!
Dominicanis,
Given the wide range of definitions, what does it mean for a Catholic to "pray to the angels and saints"? Well, it doesn't mean definition 1 or 6. It means definition 4, 5 or 7. ...
When we pray to the angels and saints, we do not offer the same type of prayer we give to Christ; we in essence ask them the same thing we'd ask of a fellow Christian here on earth. To a Catholic, the saints aren't dead. They are perfectly alive in the Presence of God, able to see Him face to face, and their prayers, like Elijah's, are very powerful because God wills it to be that way.
I understand it SHOULDN'T mean 1 or 6, but sometimes it does. Here's an example I saw online.
"Dear St. Anthony, you are the patron of the poor and the helper of all who seek lost articles. Help me to find the object I have lost so that I will be able to make better use of the time that I will gain for God's greater honor and glory. Grant your gracious aid to all people who seek what they have lost, especially those who seek to regain God's grace. Amen."
(http://www.prayerbook.com/Prayers/Saints/
fspother.htm#Anthony)
At least this person acknowledges he wants to glorify God with the time he gains, but others don't. Firstly, how do you know it's St Anthony's job to help the poor or find lost things? God may have him working on something totally different. It's extremely presumptuous for the RCC to designate what heavenly saints are in charge of here on earth. Secondly, why not make this prayer directly to God? That's the model Jesus gave us.
But is there any place in the Bible where angels (or saints, for that matter) are addressed in an entreaty, an exhortation to join with someone in prayer? Please go to Psalms 130 and 143.
You may want to rethink Psalms 130 & 143; they actually support my position as the Psalmist is praying directly to God with no mention of angels at all. I presume you just listed the wrong Psalms.
.
Adomnan,
Ken & Dave have done well to cite prayers to Jesus & the Holy Spirit. Since you don't accept their citings, God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit make up the Trinity, praying to one would be like praying to each. If all are fully God, then a prayer to God would naturally be a prayer to the Holy Spirit or Jesus.
Is Jesus fully God and fully man? Is the Holy Spirit fully God and fully Spirit? Since we know they are, any prayer to God the Father would also be a prayer to God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.
.
John 14:14 was strong; then you threw in that wrench that there is a textual variant of the Greek "me". Bummer!
I looked at the first few textual variants.
However, the earliest manuscripts have it; like P-66 (200 AD); Codex Siniaticus (4th Century; 350?); Codex Vaticanus (4th Century, 350 ?)
The oldest that omits "me" is D, Codex Alexandrinus, ( 5th Century, 450 AD)which is later than all three of those mentioned above.
So, "If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it" is very, very strong.
Anyway, the doctrine of the Tri-Unitas God is all through the Bible; the Father is God, Jesus is God; the Holy Spirit is God; and since prayers and praises are to God only; it is valid to pray and praise them in prayer; although most of the time, the teaching on the form of prayers emphasizes "Father in Heaven". But every time the Bible says, "O Lord, . . . " followed by a prayer, we can be confident that all three persons are included in this ontologically and doctrinally; since the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Spirit is Lord.
So, you argument is no good; because Protestant theology does not exclude theological deductions; as long as they are valid and reflect the true intention of the author, interpreted properly; so we don't need an explicit text for example that says, "the father and the Son are homo-ousias" or the "threeness of God is talking about persons in the Trinity; relationships, etc.
Since Mary and the saints are not God; prayers to them are wrong. And once people die, we cannot ask for their intercession.
The veil has been ripped and done away with; we have access to the Father, (Hebrews 9-10; Ephesians 2:18.) why not just pray straight to Him, based on the one mediator, Jesus Christ? I Timothy 2:5-6
"For through Him we both have our access
in one Spirit to the Father." Ephesians 2:18
Hebrews 10:19-20
Hebrews 9:8-14
Hebrews 10:10-14
Hebrews 6:19-20
therefore, we are NOT caught in a contradiction. You are refuted.
Ken: Imperative form does not always mean strict "command" in context. Sometimes is is an exhortation and sometimes a request. Stephen could not "command" Jesus to receive his spirit; rather, I do think it qualifies as a prayerful requests to the one who sits at the right hand of the Father.
Adomnan: But in saying this, Rev. Temple, you're actually agreeing with my point. Stephen may be uttering an "exhortation," as you put it, rather than a request. In any event, since he sees Jesus right before his eyes in this passage, it's not a prayer to an invisible presence, which is what we've been talking about, any more than Paul's exchange with Jesus on the road to Damascus was a prayer.
However you define prayer, there are no prayers in the Bible to Jesus (or the Spirit) in a liturgical or worship context. Stephen's cry just before death to a visible Jesus is not sufficient biblical justificaition for regular, liturgical prayer to Jesus.
Ken: Dave added other good verses for this; good arguments for praying to the Son and the Spirit also -- excellent.
Adomnan: Sure, but Dave also posted excellent arguments for prayers to saints and angels from the Bible, which you reject. The fact remains that neither prayer to saints and angels nor prayer to Jesus or the Holy Spirit is explicitly enjoined by the Bible, and so one must use inferences, which are of course always debatable, to provide a biblical foundation for these practices.
What is undeniable though is that the Bible never instructs anyone to pray to the Spirit and it's highly questionable whether we are ever instructed to pray to Jesus either. The form of prayer attested in the New Testament is to the Father in the Spirit and in the name of Jesus Christ. If you're relyng solely on the Bible to know how to pray, you shouldn't be praying to Jesus or the Spirit.
I think Adomnan agrees with that, Grubb. He's trying to show that if Scripture is not explicit about or never teaches at all, prayer to the Holy Spirit and Jesus (and I don't think it is explicit, though there is a little bit of indication), then it would not have to be, also, for asking saints and angels to pray. It's a clever argument. I love analogies.
This sort of argument can be applied to many things. I say Scripture says nothing about sola Scriptura, either, and it definitely says nothing about the canon of Scripture (all agree on that). One has to work very hard to squeeze sola Scriptura out of the Bible.
If it is that hard to do, then people will distort the true teaching on Christian authority, found in the Bible and will need the Church. To some extent this is even true of the teaching regarding the Holy Trinity. I think there is plenty in Scripture, but it's not all in one place, and people will distort it and get it wrong many times if they are going by Bible Alone (as the early Arians and other heretics did, while the Church appealed to Bible AND tradition and apostolic succession).
The Bible gives authority to the Church, and the Church is needed to clarify, with documents like the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, and the clarifications of the Councils of Nicaea (325) and Chalcedon (451).
Bible Alone just don't cut it. THAT is Adomnan's point, and I agree with it, though I think he overstated the case about prayer just a little too much. It works in a qualified sense, but I don't think we can say that the NT says "nothing" about prayer to Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
Both can, but the money issue is more likely to become an idol, because it deals with trusting God versus trusting our own ability to provide. Don't you agree?
No. Things that look "charitable" can be causes for pride just as much as anything else. Indeed, St. Paul's comment suggests that Christians are more vulnerable to this sort of error precisely because they can get into this mindset that they aren't like the tax collectors. That's why I suggest drawing a line between natural goods and disordered desires is more sensible. There are some things that are clearly just immoral because they violate the human nature, and no person should ever do those things. Once those are covered, then you start developing your judgment, and at that level, it isn't about a legalistic list of commands but rather wisdom in following God.
Praying to heavenly saints would be another issue that (even if it was Biblical) would be more prone to idolatry than other things
I see no reason at all to think so. In fact, it encourages dependence on others that is directly contrary to the sort of self-worship that creates idolatry. I actually consider veneration of saints one of the lowest risk activities for idolatry, because throwing your trust in someone else's charity and recognizing your own limitations and unworthiness is inherently humbling. Historically, the superstitious pagans were much more like people using modern technology, in that it wasn't about appealing to the charity of the gods so much as them doing what they are supposed to do if the right offerings are made, etc. The forms of praying to the saints, all of which implore their charity, are very different in kind from the pagan mindset. Lots of the practices that appear superstitious in Catholicism are actually deviations from the traditional forms.
It was by no means my main point which is why I didn't want to spend too much time on it.
Well, I'll avoid discussing it further then and let what I say here be my answer.
So your assumption is that no one who risks death by refusing to offer incense to a false god could ever commit idolatry? Then why does Paul say, "So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don't fall."? (I Cor 10:12) Satan is crafty and can even deceive strong Christians if we're not careful.
For exactly the reason I said above: because you can become prideful in doing the right thing. This isn't about accidentally slipping into some bad practice, but in taking excessive pride in doing right.
Besides, I'm not *assuming* anything about what they can or can't do at some later time. If they were living in the catacombs, they presumably were surviving persecution at that time, so they were proved true in their faith, and the Bible does not suggest that we should be suspicious of such people. Indeed, it says we should make them our examples! And if this was an idolatrous pra
(cont.)
And if this was an idolatrous practice, why did not the faithful wipe out these images? Did they lack the courage to challenge error even though they were willing to face death for their beliefs?
Are you suggesting EVERY person who wandered in the desert for 40 years with Moses was "fickle"?
No, what I am saying is that they fell away, demonstrating that they became fickle when tempted. But there were also people who did not fall away, and we hold those people up as examples of what to do.
My counter is, he didn't have a copy of the Bible with him and hadn't been instructed on this issue, so he wouldn't have necessarily known he was doing wrong.
If that's your "counter," then you might as well admit that you have no response. Do you know how anachronistic the idea of a "copy of the Bible with him" is? *Everything* was a matter of corporate worship; you might as well just be saying that there were no Christians at the time as say that they didn't have a "copy of the Bible." Of all the silly things you've said, the idea that there was somebody with a printing press handing out a "copy of the Bible" that was supposed to be consulted as the normative guide for practice is the most outlandish I've heard. It's ricidulous to think of the dwellers in the catacombs as idolators for absolutely no reason, but it's absolutely comical to then make the excuse that they didn't have a "copy of the Bible."
This may be your weakest argument so far. Splitting off and starting a new church isn't specifically condemned in the Bible. Marrying a 5 year old and having relations with her isn't specifically condemned in the Bible. An average guy having more than one wife isn't specifically condemned in the Bible (remember, it was only deacons, elders, and bishops who were required to have but one wife). Is that REALLY what you want? There are so many things that aren't specifically condemned in the Bible that we know to be wrong based on other things that ARE in the Bible.
On the contrary, there are many things that aren't specifically condemned in the Bible that we have to judge according to sound principles, including conflict with natural law. That's exactly why "the Bible doesn't talk about this so we shouldn't do it" is a bad argument. The Bible isn't an exhaustive list; it exhorts judgment and wisdom, not simply asking "what does the Bible say." You've explained how weak your argument is, not shown any weakness in mine.
I ain't got time to deal with crazy, so that's got to be it. Didn't have a copy of the Bible with him ... that just puts me over the edge in terms of being able to take this discussion seriously. Next you'll tell me that they didn't wipe out the pictures because no one had a digital camera to provide evidence against them. LOL!
Since you don't accept their citings, God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit make up the Trinity, praying to one would be like praying to each. If all are fully God, then a prayer to God would naturally be a prayer to the Holy Spirit or Jesus.
Is Jesus fully God and fully man? Is the Holy Spirit fully God and fully Spirit? Since we know they are, any prayer to God the Father would also be a prayer to God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.
WHAT?! Does three Persons not ring a bell? You pray to a person, not to a nature. You might as well just chunk the whole doctrine of the Trinity out the window if this is true.
Hi Adomnan,
"Call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" may mean "invoke the name of Jesus Christ when praying to the Father."
I think this analysis fails, though, because the phraseology of "call upon the name" is used of God the Father, too, in the OT, thus suggesting that it implies direct address to God (with Jesus being the recipient, since He is analogous to God the Father in this scenario, as opposed to praying "in His Name" to the Father).
Calling upon (the name of) Jesus is calling Jesus Himself, not praying to the Father in His name. It appears to be two different concepts. This is shown in the following parallels:
1 CORINTHIANS 1:2 . . . with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, . . .
JOEL 2:32 And it shall come to pass, {that} whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered:...
{quoted in Acts 2:21, Rom 10:12-14, using the same word for "call," "epikaleo," as that in 1 Cor 1:2}
GEN 4:26 At that time men began to call upon the name of the LORD.
GEN 26:25 So he built an altar there and called upon the name of the LORD.
ISAIAH 12:4 And you will say in that day: "Give thanks to the LORD, call upon his name;
make known his deeds among the nations,
proclaim that his name is exalted.
1 ESDRAS 6:33 Therefore may the Lord, whose name is there called upon.
JUDITH 16:2 And Judith said, Begin a song to my God with tambourines, sing to my Lord with cymbals. Raise to him a new psalm;
exalt him, and call upon his name.
ACTS 9:10-17 Now there was a disciple at Damascus named Anani'as. The Lord said to him in a vision, "Anani'as." And he said, "Here I am, Lord." And the Lord said to him, "Rise and go to the street called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for a man of Tarsus named Saul; for behold, he is praying, and he has seen a man named Anani'as come in and lay his hands on him so that he might regain his sight." But Anani'as answered, "Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much evil he has done to thy saints at Jerusalem; and here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call upon thy name." But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; for I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name." So Anani'as departed and entered the house. And laying his hands on him he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came, has sent me that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit."
(cf. Dt 4:7; 1 Sam 12:17-18; 2 Sam 22:4,7; 1 Chr 21:26; Ps 14:4; 18:3,6; 55:16; 88:9; 141:1; 145:18; Jer 33:3; Sir 2:10; 46:16; 48:20; 2 Mac 3:22; 12:36; 13:10; 14:46; 15:21-22; 2 Tim 2:22 -- "call upon the Lord," etc., without "name" included)
Also:
REVELATION 5:8 And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four {and} twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.
Here the 24 elders are worshiping Jesus and they have the prayers of the saints (what ere they doing with them?), presented to Him. So it is not only prayer to Jesus, but also prayer to Jesus through the intercession of the (dead) saints: something that Protestants reject, even though it is right in front of them here and in Rev 8:3-4 where angels do the same exact thing: present prayers of people to God.
So I think the argument using the analogy of prayer to Jesus clearly fails, but the argument from lack of explicit prayer to the Holy Spirit still works, because one can only find, I believe, at best, implicit indications of it in the NT, whereas I can and have produced several good indications of intercession of the saints.
Hello, Grubb,
Sorry for transposing the psalm numbers, a bad habit when I type. Psalm 103, v.20 to the end, and Psalm 148, in which David exhorts all of creation to join with him in praising God. Nowhere does he directly address God in that one. Both provide examples of prayer as making a fervent entreaty, not as an act of worship. This entreaty is what praying to saints and angels is, so it is not unseemly or unbiblical to pray that way. In any event, I apologize sincerely for the confusion caused by my typos, and thank you for your kindly correction.
As for the St. Anthony prayer, that's a far cry from the type of devotional prayer rendered to God in worship. It reads more like asking a favor from a friend. It's one thing to ask a friend to help you with an annoying problem like finding a lost object (and asking him to pray for those lost in sin) and a very different thing to enter into prayer meant to offer worship to God. Since not ALL prayer is worship, there is actually no harm in praying to a saint, provided that there isn't worship attached.
As for stating that a saint may be more effective in helping one problem versus another, that is a pious practice, not a doctrine. The Catholic Church has no problem with things that are pious practices as long as they are not called doctrines.
As for how we can know whether or not those who have left this earthly vale know what goes on here, one may consider the rich man and Lazarus, and how the former begs Abraham to send the latter to warn his erring brothers. If a soul in torment can know things of this earth, how is it not feasible for someone in the Beatific Vision of God, Who knows all, to know something of what goes on here? Is charity for fellow Christians to be absent from those who have been glorified with God in Heaven, Who is Charity Himself? In Revelation 5:8, saints in Heaven offer the "prayers of the saints". Saints are those who do God's Will, whether on Heaven or on earth, so it is not untenable to believe that the prayers being offered to God are from both Heaven and earth. Note, however, that the saints and the angels are involved in presenting them before God.
Contacting spirits through necromancy is absolutely forbidden by the Scriptures, but asking Christians to pray for others is not. (Cf. Tim. 2:1–4, where Paul instructs us all to pray for one another. When one addresses an angel or a saint, he is asking him to join in his prayer, to bring his prayer to Christ, and/or to pray for him.) If the prayers of the righteous Elijah were as efficacious as James described, how much more powerful are the prayers of the righteous who have been perfected in Heaven?
I hope this time I proofread correctly.
Yours in Christ,
Dave,
I think your comparison of "calling upon the name of Jesus Christ" with "calling upon the name of the Lord' in the Old Testament is convincing, and so I retract my assertion that there is no support for prayng to Jesus in the New Testament. In any event, this was just a thesis for consideration and exploration.
However, it remains the case, as you say, that Christians are never instructed to pray to the Holy Spirit. So one of my contentions still stands; namely, that relying solely on what the Bible enjoins would preclude prayer to the Holy Spirit . And you agree with this, I see.
I would not be surprised if there were in fact some Puritan sola scripturists who refused to pray to the Holy Spirit and who "invoked Jesus's name" but did not otherwise pray to him.
Hi Jonathan,
WHAT?! Does three Persons not ring a bell? You pray to a person, not to a nature. You might as well just chunk the whole doctrine of the Trinity out the window if this is true.
I didn't see Grubb saying we pray to a nature, not a person. He stated that prayer to one is prayer to the other Persons too, which is a different proposition.
What Grubb has expressed is orthodox Catholic Christology. It's called circumincession in Latin and perichoresis in Greek. I've written about it:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/
2...hristology.html
( section 8 )
Ludwig Ott, in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, has a lot to say on this, though I couldn't find anything specifically on prayer:
In God all is one except for the opposition of relations. (De Fide).
"From the doctrine of the Divine Relations there flows the so-called basic trinitarian law, which was first formulated by St. Anselm of Canterbury (De processione Spiritus S. 2), and which was solemnly asserted by the Council of Florence in the Decretum pro Jacobis (1441) . . . Denzinger 703. According to this assertion, the real distinction of the Persons rests exclusively on the opposition of the relations."
(p. 70)
The Trinitarian Perichoresis (Circumincession)
The Three Divine Persons Are in One another. (De Fide.)
. . . Denzinger 704. Christ testifies that the Father is in Him and that He is in the Father. John 10,30: "I and the Father are one." 10,38 . . . Cf. John 14,9 et seq.: 17,21. The Indwelling of the Holy Ghost in the Father and in the Son is indicated in 1 Cor 2, 10 et seq. . . . The fundamental basis of the Trinitarian Perichoresis is the one Essence of the Three Persons. Cf. S. th. I, 42, 5."
(p. 71)
Here are Denzinger 703-704:
A Decree in Behalf of the Jacobites *
[From the Bull "Cantata Domino," February 4, Florentine style,
1441, modern, 1442]
703 The sacrosanct Roman Church, founded by the voice of our Lord and Savior, firmly believes, professes, and preaches one true God omnipotent, unchangeable, and eternal, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; one in essence, three in persons; Father unborn, Son born of the Father, Holy Spirit proceeding from Father and Son; that the Father is not Son or Holy Spirit, that Son is not Father or Holy Spirit; that Holy Spirit is not Father or Son; but Father alone is Father, Son alone is Son, Holy Spirit alone is Holy Spirit. The Father alone begot the Son of His own substance; the Son alone was begotten of the Father alone; the Holy Spirit alone proceeds at the same time from the Father and Son. These three persons are one God, and not three gods, because the three have one substance, one essence, one nature, one divinity, one immensity, one eternity, and all these things are one where no opposition of relationship interferes . *
704 "Because of this unity the Father is entire in the Son, entire in the Holy Spirit; the Son is entire in the Father, entire in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is entire in the Father, entire in the Son. No one either excels another in eternity, or exceeds in magnitude, or is superior in power. For the fact that the Son is of the Father is eternal and without beginning. and that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is eternal and without beginning.''*Whatever the Father is or has, He does not have from another, but from Himself; and He is the principle without principle. Whatever the Son is or has, He has from the Father, and is the principle from a principle. Whatever the Holy Spirit is or has, He has simultaneously from the Father and the Son. But the Father and the Son are not two principles of the Holy Spirit, but one principle, just as the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are not three principles of the creature, but one principle.
http://
www.catecheticsonline.com...cesofDogma8.php
And St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, 42, 5, reads:
"On the contrary, It is said (Jn. 14:10): "I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me."
I answer that, There are three points of consideration as regards the Father and the Son; the essence, the relation and the origin; and according to each the Son and the Father are in each other. The Father is in the Son by His essence, forasmuch as the Father is His own essence and communicates His essence to the Son not by any change on His part. Hence it follows that as the Father's essence is in the Son, the Father Himself is in the Son; likewise, since the Son is His own essence, it follows that He Himself is in the Father in Whom is His essence. This is expressed by Hilary (De Trin. v), "The unchangeable God, so to speak, follows His own nature in begetting an unchangeable subsisting God. So we understand the nature of God to subsist in Him, for He is God in God." It is also manifest that as regards the relations, each of two relative opposites is in the concept of the other. Regarding origin also, it is clear that the procession of the intelligible word is not outside the intellect, inasmuch as it remains in the utterer of the word. What also is uttered by the word is therein contained. And the same applies to the Holy Ghost."
http://www.catecheticsonline.com...m/Summa-1-
5.php
Prayer to one Divine Person being also prayer to the other two Divine Persons in the Holy Trinity, follows from these dogmas. The Catechism states outright that this is so:
2670 "No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit." Every time we begin to pray to Jesus it is the Holy Spirit who draws us on the way of prayer by his prevenient grace. Since he teaches us to pray by recalling Christ, how could we not pray to the Spirit too? . . .
2789 When we pray to "our" Father, we personally address the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. By doing so we do not divide the Godhead, since the Father is its "source and origin," but rather confess that the Son is eternally begotten by him and the Holy Spirit proceeds from him. We are not confusing the persons, for we confess that our communion is with the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ, in their one Holy Spirit. The Holy Trinity is consubstantial and indivisible. When we pray to the Father, we adore and glorify him together with the Son and the Holy Spirit.
2801 When we say "Our" Father, we are invoking the new covenant in Jesus Christ, communion with the Holy Trinity, and the divine love which spreads through the Church to encompass the world.
Jonathan, I agree with your point that the Reformation might have had an adequate explanation THEN but perhaps not NOW. I do not take the Reformation the way many other Protestants do - I do not see it as "the turning point of Christian history" or some such perfect ideal that corrects all which came before it and sets up an infallible standard for all that comes after it. My concerns about the Reformation are for the most part historical in nature, which is why I invoke George Hunston Williams' distinction between the "magisterial" and "radical" reformations. They were two different animals entirely, and whatever excesses the magisterials may have perpetrated, it is historically indisputable that they were motivated by a desire to preserve the ancient Faith of the Church, not to level it to the ground and start over from scratch via the ludicrous "Bible Only" method that so many so-called Protestants today take as the meaning of "sola" Scriptura.
I don't buy into the "Third Age" idea you express, nor do I generally follow the Reformers' polemics against the Medieval saints. I am much more Medieval in my own attitudes than I am Modern, and it is precisely a big part of my point that what the Reformation unfortunately has devolved into is a corrupted Modernist subjectivism that redefines all the original terms and actually subverts the original program. We can fairly say, I think, that the Reformation failed in what it was trying to do, and that quests today to keep it going, to repristinate it in every generation, are just ridiculous and only succeed in moving people farther away from the catholic religion with each new "semper reformanda" iteration.
This is why I mentioned the spectrum of error idea: we are told by our Baptist brothers that the Reformers failed to purge out all the Romanism, so the Reformed Baptists had to come along 150 years later and finish the job. Well, nothing prevents the exact same logic from being applied to the Baptists - which is exactly what the Purtians did, and then guys like Russell and Taze did in the 1800s, not to mention Schleiermacher. Each time somebody claims that "purity" hasn't been achieved by the other group so their little group is going to finish the job, the errors just get worse and worse and the Faith more and more degraded. Once a person starts down the road of constantly revising, it's very difficult to figure out where the brakes are and how to apply them.
[cont]
[cont]
I suppose we could argue whether this was a necessary result of the Reformation or an accidental one, but the fact still remains that the original Reformers did not intend for what has happened to happen. This is why, for instance, you find the Reformed Scholastic Turretin in the 17th century remarking that the separate ecclesiastical structures of the Reformation churches were originally intended only as "emergency measures" in a time of extreme crisis, not as actual competitors to the original which were meant to take on a life of their own.
As far as Reformation saints go, well, I suppose one has to take into account differing definitions of "saint." Certainly there were men of exceptional holiness in the Reformation churches, both in the 16th century and beyond. They may not have been celibates who had mystical visions of Jesus and Mary and who left behind relics to be venerated, and so forth, but those things are not sine qua nons of saintly living, surely. And for all the negative things I said above about Baptists, Baptists have been on the forefront of much great missionary work for centuries. They may have been propagating a weirdly overspiritualistic variety of Christianity, but surely many people have been brought into the Kingdom of God through their efforts.
All I'm saying is that when I look at the record, I see absolutely no reason in principle to be a Protestant and no historical witness to match the Saints of Orthodoxy or Catholicism. So I genuinely don't understand why anybody is one. And this has been baffling to me for my entire life, even before I reverted to Catholcism and even when I wasn't particularly religious. Since I see no reason, I must chalk it up to some sort of subjective feeling or emotion or something other than reason, because I've spent years in vain trying to find anything else. I don't think it is necessarily a fickle or meaningless emotion or a lack of genuine experience, but it isn't the sort of thing that can be confirmed or articulated in any way.
As for subjective emotions being the foundation of a religion, well, I confess to being somewhat curious how you square your very radical empiricism with what St. Thomas says about the difference between "knowledge" and "faith" and how the latter is supernaturally given by God. Your charges about Protestant subjectivism toward the Bible could be easily reversed to hit your concept of the Church and divine revelation. And at any rate, St. Thomas seems to me to be saying that the Scriptures are accepted on the authority of their authors to whom the revelation was made. This isn't an item of knowledge, but of belief. It is true that the belief can be rationally supported, but if you have the idea that Protestants have no constructions of rational support for Scriptural authority I would question the breadth of your acquaintance with Protestant theology and apologetics.
Dave,
Ken's right.
I missed the analogy Adomnan was making. It was so clear to me from the scripture I know and from what you and Ken said, that I didn't realize he was trying to make that analogy.
By the way, congrats on the hockey game last night. I thought about you as the Red Wings staved off that last second would be goal. That was a fun game to watch. I actually knew it was over when the Penguins had a 5 v 3 power play for 90 seconds and couldn't get a goal. My condolences to any Penguin fans.
.
Well, Dave, I'm sorry you've decided to make things personal between us again. I guess that means we won't be talking, because I'm not going down that path with you. Just for the record, guy, calling someone unethical, prejudiced, and dishonest in his religion (which you did to me some weeks back) is a personal attack, while disputing an undergrad's claim that his blog work is equivalent to a peer-reviewed journal (which you also claimed some weeks back) and then stating frankly that said undergrad is in no way the peer of someone doing actual scholarly work is NOT a personal attack.
For someone who claims to despise intellectual snobbery, you have a very strange attitude toward those who devote tens of thousand of dollars and many hundreds of hours of their lives to poring over complicated materials in order to advance the cause of human understanding. You claim to respect scholars, but oddly, if a scholar doesn't engage you or "dares" to claim your works aren't up to the standards he's working with, you claim that he's just being a snob - which implies that you think you're his equal even though you haven't done the work he's done. It's a very odd attitude, indeed.
Oops, my comment to Jonathan above contained some of his words - the second to last paragraph - without distinction from mine. The comment should read:
[cont]
I suppose we could argue whether this was a necessary result of the Reformation or an accidental one, but the fact still remains that the original Reformers did not intend for what has happened to happen. This is why, for instance, you find the Reformed Scholastic Turretin in the 17th century remarking that the separate ecclesiastical structures of the Reformation churches were originally intended only as "emergency measures" in a time of extreme crisis, not as actual competitors to the original which were meant to take on a life of their own.
As far as Reformation saints go, well, I suppose one has to take into account differing definitions of "saint." Certainly there were men of exceptional holiness in the Reformation churches, both in the 16th century and beyond. They may not have been celibates who had mystical visions of Jesus and Mary and who left behind relics to be venerated, and so forth, but those things are not sine qua nons of saintly living, surely. And for all the negative things I said above about Baptists, Baptists have been on the forefront of much great missionary work for centuries. They may have been propagating a weirdly overspiritualistic variety of Christianity, but surely many people have been brought into the Kingdom of God through their efforts.
As for subjective emotions being the foundation of a religion, well, I confess to being somewhat curious how you square your very radical empiricism with what St. Thomas says about the difference between "knowledge" and "faith" and how the latter is supernaturally given by God. Your charges about Protestant subjectivism toward the Bible could be easily reversed to hit your concept of the Church and divine revelation. And at any rate, St. Thomas seems to me to be saying that the Scriptures are accepted on the authority of their authors to whom the revelation was made. This isn't an item of knowledge, but of belief. It is true that the belief can be rationally supported, but if you have the idea that Protestants have no constructions of rational support for Scriptural authority I would question the breadth of your acquaintance with Protestant theology and apologetics.
Dave:
He stated that prayer to one is prayer to the other Persons too, which is a different proposition.
That was what I thought as well, but then I read his explanation "If all are fully God, then a prayer to God would naturally be a prayer to the Holy Spirit or Jesus." Maybe that's just inaptly phrased, but it seems to me that perichoresis is a matter of the interpersonal relationships, those relations of opposition, between the Persons and not simply having a common nature.
I'm not saying that when we pray to God (typically the Father in this case), we are not praying to Jesus and the Holy Spirit. But the reason is that the only-begotten is always present with the Father from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds. Those are eternal personal relationships by which the nature is shared. Grubb was suggesting that it is the fact that Jesus is "fully God" that makes prayer to the Father also prayer to the Son, but it is actually the fact that the Son is the Son of the Father that makes prayer to the Father also prayer to the Son. Grubb didn't say "I'm praying to a nature," but his statements regarding the Son being "fully God" don't distinguish between the divine nature and the divine persons and personal relationships.
I think he's got a good point regarding prayer to any divine Person being prayer to the others by implication (unlike the case with prayer to the Saints, which is a different matter). But his reason for thinking that threw me.
Jonathan,
No. Things that look "charitable" can be causes for pride just as much as anything else.
I'm beginning to wonder if I say the Pope is the vicar of Christ on earth, whether you'll disagree with me just because I said it. I mean, seriously, do you really think someone serving in a soup kitchen is as likely to treat that service like an idol as someone who stores up lots of money is to making that an idol?
We've all probably heard the saying that Jesus spoke more about money than any other single topic. I can't confirm that, but it IS an old saying. If that's true, don't you think money has the edge over most other things for becoming an idol? Further, Paul said, "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil." (I Tim 6:10a) I don't think he made that claim of serving the poor.
More tomorrow.
.
Well, Dave, I'm sorry you've decided to make things personal between us again.
I did not. You did that when you couldn't handle criticism (as always, reconciliation or no) with regard to the "Reformation theft" issue. Readers can judge for themselves what went on there:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...lic-
church.html
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...9943916/
#162441
You chose to initially reply to my article (though later you claimed it was virtually worthless). Then you complained that I was attacking you (which I was not). So I wrote:
"Just let me know which sections of my reply were of the sort that you decry above, and I'll be happy to remove or modify them, till they do get your approval."
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...9943916/
#162741
You did not do so.
After further friendly clarifications from myself, showing that the charge of personal attack was groundless, you chose to go spastic and the snobbish, elitist route, as usual (evading the actual issues at hand, as always, too):
"There are indeed people who can hold me accountable for the things I argue from primary sources and scholarly secondaries, but frankly, you aren't one of them. You're not a scholar, you're a layman. You're not a professional student of the things you study, you're an Internet apologist. The community you serve isn't as a whole (there are exceptions) a community seeking long-term understanding, but a community seeking short-term victories. These facts limit your horizons and limit the extent to which you can claim to be engaging opposing positions. I don't "excuse" myself from your critiques so much as I generally don't recognize your critiques as being properly formed or informed, and thus, not in need of extended attempts to engage them "line by line." "
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...9943916/
#162852
I replied:
"If I am such an imbecile, then why did you bother to critique my paper at all? I never claimed to be other than a popular apologist. I reiterate that endlessly."
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...9943916/
#162859
This was ignored and you split and weren't heard from till you felt compelled to come to my blog and call my Baptist friend Ken Temple not a Protestant at all, and closer to Cathari Gnostics, theological liberals, and Mormonism, than to Protestantism. That set me off, but with every justification.
I guess that means we won't be talking, because I'm not going down that path with you.
You chose it. Now you can get lost. I won't be writing about you; not to worry. Write about me and how I'm such a dumbbell if you wish.
I'll be ignoring you, and also (having heard enough of your self-important, poorly-argued bilge) banning you from this blog, as soon as I write this comment, because it's not enough for you to come to my blog to insult me; now you have to even go after my guests, by slandering them without cause (and you have not seen fit to retract and apologize), and that is completely unacceptable.
We've built this blog into a wonderful place for charitable, constructive discussion, precisely because people like you, who seem constitutionally unable to do cordial discussion with someone you disagree with, without insult, haven't frequented it. I'm extremely proud of the people who are regulars on this blog. Good discussion IS possible, but it isn't with you: not when someone dares to disagree with you. You'll take that as a personal insult every time. You're gonna be one unhappy camper, then, as an academic and historian.
You obviously wanted reconciliation with me because my critiques (and your ridiculous responses to them, that I documented) were harming your reputation in some fashion. I was happy to remove all that. The rotgut attitudes and opinions about my work and my person, however, obviously didn't change much, if at all. That was proven in the "Reformation theft" exchange.
If you want to discuss and defend your goofy supposed "Catholic" ideas (which are really Protestantism of a unique and peculiar sort; you're fooling no one), do it on your own blog, and open up your comments for a change.
Just for the record, guy, calling someone unethical, prejudiced, and dishonest in his religion (which you did to me some weeks back)
I did not. You obviously did not understand the subtleties and nuances of my argument, which I tried to explain, in vain, as always with you. You're unable to sustain critique without going nuts and being hyper-sensitive. Presumably that is why you don't have comments on your blog anymore. You don't WANT anyone to disagree with you. You want to lecture and have everyone sit in rapt admiration of your sublime wisdom, without reply. And you know that nine times out of ten you'll blow your top and it'll be another "Tim fiasco" that we are all so familiar with, if you did have comments on your blog. I've seen it 100 times.
For someone who claims to despise intellectual snobbery, you have a very strange attitude toward those who devote tens of thousand of dollars and many hundreds of hours of their lives to poring over complicated materials in order to advance the cause of human understanding. You claim to respect scholars, but oddly, if a scholar doesn't engage you or "dares" to claim your works aren't up to the standards he's working with, you claim that he's just being a snob
You are no scholar, Tim, and you have nothing on me when it comes to devotion to a cause and financial sacrifice for same, so that line of rhetoric gets you nowhere with me. You may be a scholar one day (and as I said, I can't wait to see that because then you won't be able to run in terror from the expected critiques of your scholarly peers, and that will be a sight to see), but you ain't yet, and your implication that you are, is just more of the same condescending nonsense from you.
My apologetic work does not become worthless or of only minimal value at best, for limited audiences (as you have implied and insinuated for years and continue to do to this day) simply because it is from a non-scholar and layman, as I am.
- which implies that you think you're his equal even though you haven't done the work he's done. It's a very odd attitude, indeed.
May God abundantly bless you in your life and studies, and may He especially bless you with the spirit of humility and willingness to learn and interact with divergent viewpoints that a true and good scholar exhibits.
Tim:
I think you've hit on something in your criticism, and I hope this will help me articulate that.
As for subjective emotions being the foundation of a religion, well, I confess to being somewhat curious how you square your very radical empiricism with what St. Thomas says about the difference between "knowledge" and "faith" and how the latter is supernaturally given by God. Your charges about Protestant subjectivism toward the Bible could be easily reversed to hit your concept of the Church and divine revelation. And at any rate, St. Thomas seems to me to be saying that the Scriptures are accepted on the authority of their authors to whom the revelation was made. This isn't an item of knowledge, but of belief. It is true that the belief can be rationally supported, but if you have the idea that Protestants have no constructions of rational support for Scriptural authority I would question the breadth of your acquaintance with Protestant theology and apologetics.
I think the nub of the problem is in the confusion between private revelation and public revelation. I do think that there is such a thing as actual grace, and I do think that God privately reveals Himself in some singular way, often through an angel or saint. I don't doubt that. But of those things, one never actually knows whether what happened was a divine intervention or just a sort of coincidence of ordinary providence.
This is why the great Saints, most especially the mystics, emphatically teach that one should not aspire to mystical experiences. This is why they warn sternly against the possibility of demonic delusion. Instead, they say to be baptized, to participate in the Eucharist, and to go to Confession, because you might have a mystical experience, but you never really know like you do with the Sacraments. On the other hand, if you participate in the Sacraments, you have objective indicia of the action of God, discernible as such by faith (in that this action is an unseen component of what is seen) but still knowable as object in its indicia. Hence, faith is knowledge of things unseen, and not mere belief.
That's what motivates this concept of an authoritative faith in St. Thomas. Yes, the Apostles had authority, but that authority is confirmed by the objective faith still persisting today in the Church and the authoritative teaching of the Magisterium. The authority is by the experience of the author, but the objective indicia of that authority are found in the practice of the Church. That's the part I don't understand about Protestantism: what are the objective indicia of the external bestowal of authority to correspond to the objective indicia of grace? How does someone with the virtue of faith come to knowledge by faith?
I'm trying to get a handle on how the Protestant concept of faith can be articulated in these terms. The sorts of things you cite, including the response to Scripture, are the kinds of interior
(cont.)
I'm trying to get a handle on how the Protestant concept of faith can be articulated in these terms. The sorts of things you cite, including the response to Scripture, are the kinds of interior disposition or actual grace of which we can't be sure. Those look like private revelation, purely interior matters that might well be true but allow us no way to really know. I don't say it is irrational to believe in them, but it would be irrational to say that one has real knowledge of them, because they can't be surely confirmed by their very nature. Where are the external, objective signs that are necessary for one to have knowledge by faith of grace, authority, or divine action more generally?
That's the problem that I tried to articulate previously with regard to why the authority of Scripture itself can't be an adequate basis for knowledge of divine authority. One's response to Scripture is something found only in one's heart, and I don't know the objective indicia by which those subjective stirrings are confirmed. And the authority of Scripture itself must be confirmed in the same way, and there do not appear to be objective indicia outside of the apostolic succession.
This might not have been helpful, but it is something that I genuinely don't understand. What are the objective indicia causing submission to something outside oneself in faith?
I think you're being a bit too hard on Grubb, Jonathan. If he wasn't super-precise, he certainly wasn't undoubtedly heretical in the words that he stated, and you have to analyze and dig deep and speculate to even find that implication.
These are very deep waters: difficult for anyone to understand (even the greatest minds in the Church). We're not professional theologians. I think we need to cut a little slack in precision of terminology.
Grubb believes in more than enough error, without us picking on him in this regard, no?
Tim Enloe is now banned from this blog, so any discussion with him will have to continue in private e-mail, since he doesn't allow comments on his blog.
Hi Grubb,
By the way, congrats on the hockey game last night. I thought about you as the Red Wings staved off that last second would be goal. That was a fun game to watch. I actually knew it was over when the Penguins had a 5 v 3 power play for 90 seconds and couldn't get a goal. My condolences to any Penguin fans.
Thanks! Though I'm not a hockey fan at all and didn't even watch it. We're Pistons (and Tigers) fans, still licking our wounds after the 3rd straight year of losing in the Eastern Conference Finals. BOO!
At least we've had our share of championships in Detroit, with three sports teams (not counting the impossible Lions, of course). It's now eight since 1984, with also an American League pennant in 2006. I can even remember the Tigers way back in 1968, coming back from down 3-1 in the World Series. Bob Gibson, Mickey Lolich and Denny McLain (who had won 31 games but choked in the Series, and Lolich won three). What a series!
Some cities never get that thrill. It's quite an experience.
Grubb believes in more than enough error, without us picking on him in this regard, no?
OK, fair enough. I got caught off guard not just by that statement but by a number of things that he had said previously, and maybe I was just reading too much into what he said. One of those odd things being:
I mean, seriously, do you really think someone serving in a soup kitchen is as likely to treat that service like an idol as someone who stores up lots of money is to making that an idol?
It depends on what you mean by "as likely." Do I think that someone serving in a soup kitchen can be just as prideful in their reasons for doing it as someone who makes a lot of money? Absolutely!
I really do think there is little difference between the two in that regard. I just don't think that there happen to be as many people with the personality to get puffed up about being a "good Christian," but that is probably because money can be used to fund all sorts of sinful desire, while that sort of pride is of a particualr sort. But I don't see much difference in Paul's condemnation of the love of money and his warning to Christians not to be puffed up about their own accomplishments.
Poverty itself is commended over being rich, simply because it is easier to give all that you have. It's hard for a rich person to really sacrifice, and sacrifice is a good thing. That is certainly a Biblical lesson. And saving for one's family can become an excuse not to engage in sacrificial love. That is also true. But it doesn't follow from anything I have said that raising money is more inherently prone to causing sin than anything else, and like I said, venerating saints seems far less likely to lead to other sins.
I dont want to derail any conversations going on, but I was wondering what people like Grub think about the concept of the Imputed Righteousness of Christ?
From my study that concept is the central pillar of the Reformation and the heart of Sola Fide.
If that concept could be shown to be false would you, Grub, remain Protestant?
Tim Enloe is now banned from this blog, so any discussion with him will have to continue in private e-mail, since he doesn't allow comments on his blog.
Well, it's your house, and you've pretty much said that you aren't going to take pure insults, so I think that's fair. I think I've said my piece, but Tim is always welcome to email me with any questions.
9 years of crap from one person is more than enough. I thought he had finally got past it when he stopped hanging around anti-Catholics White and Svendsen and King, and when we reconciled, but it came right back at the first opportunity. I don't have the patience of Job. If there's anything I can't stand it is arrogant condescension.
Was it me or did Tim Enloe say he was Catholic?
Giovanni,
I thought the same thing as you but it was actually Jonathan that said that he reverted to Catholicism. Tim was QUOTING Jonathan to respond to him, Tim was not saying that about himself.
I dont know Tim that well but for Dave to get this mad means Tim had to have done something bad.
Jonathan,
Here are two quotes from you:
1) If a practice isn't specifically condemned, it should be permissible; it's that simple.
2) On the contrary, there are many things that aren't specifically condemned in the Bible that we have to judge according to sound principles
So now you're contradicting your own position. Apparently it's NOT "that simple" as you stated in your first quotation. Your 2nd quote sounds very much like the statement I made yesterday (6/5/08 ) at 11:20am,
(Grubb) There are so many things that aren't specifically condemned in the Bible that we know to be wrong based on other things that ARE in the Bible.
Better watch out, it sounds as though you're agreeing with Grubb.
.
Dave,
I think you're being a bit too hard on Grubb, Jonathan. If he wasn't super-precise, he certainly wasn't undoubtedly heretical in the words that he stated, and you have to analyze and dig deep and speculate to even find that implication.
Thanks.
.
Was it me or did Tim Enloe say he was Catholic?
He plays the game of calling himself "Reformed Catholic." At the same time, he wants to continue to lay claim on the word "Protestant," as seen in his amazing disavowal that Baptists are Protestants.
And yes, he was citing Jonathan and neglected to use italics to indicate that.
Dominicanis,
Psalm 103:20-21 says, "Praise the LORD, you his angels, you mighty ones who do his bidding, who obey his word. Praise the LORD, all his heavenly hosts, you his servants who do his will." And Psalm 148:1-3 says, "Praise the LORD. Praise the LORD from the heavens, praise him in the heights above. Praise him, all his angels, praise him, all his heavenly hosts. Praise him, sun and moon, praise him, all you shining stars."
That's not really praying TO angels, nor is it asking angels to do something for us. David is merely stating a fact, because that is, in fact, what the angels and heavenly hosts are already doing. Don't you agree?
Plus, the sun, moon, and stars already praise God inherently. They don't have an option. They do so by their very existence. Is it ok to pray to them since they are praising God? Just kidding.
As for how we can know whether or not those who have left this earthly vale know what goes on here, one may consider the rich man and Lazarus, and how the former begs Abraham to send the latter to warn his erring brothers.
The story of Lazarus and the rich man is generally considered a parable and isn't designed to show literally how heaven and hell interact in the after life but rather to show what happens to the righteous and unrighteous when they die. It also serves to show that wealth isn't necessarily an indication of one's ultimate destiny. In the OT, one of the common misconceptions was that rich people (who were obviously given their wealth by God) must be more righteous than the poor. That's why Job's friends assumed he had sinned greatly when disaster struck. That's also why the Apostles were amazed when Jesus said it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.
Praying to heavenly saints is never sanctioned in the Bible, nor is it encouraged. It's a practice that (even if it had its origins in the 2nd century) didn't become wide spread and common until after the 4th century.
.
Dave,
Thanks for the spirited defense pf me and Baptists as Protestants, but I was unsure of exactly why you banned Tim Enloe this time. As Jonathan said, this is your baby, and you can do as you want.
I would like to understand better why he does not consider Baptists Protestants; and why he is so emotional about this point. I just don't understand the intensity of it.
I wish that Augustine's "On the Unity of the Church" was translated into fully into English, so we could understand the Donatists better, more details; and what happened to the churches in North Africa from the time of the barbarian invasions / Augustine's death (430 AD) to the rise of Islam and invasion of Islam and why it was so easy for Islam to conquer the church -- except for the Coptic church in Egypt, the others from Libya to Morocco were pretty much wiped out.
This is one of my great interests.
Donatists have some similarities with Baptists; and so do some aspects of Ana-baptists. (believers baptism, local church autonomy, greater separation of powers of church and state).
Anyway, it is really amazing that Augustine's main work on that issue, The Unity of the Church, is not translated into English; after all these centuries!
So now you're contradicting your own position. Apparently it's NOT "that simple" as you stated in your first quotation.
Only because you don't understand what I'm saying. If a type of practice is not specifically condemned under a revealed principle or a principle of natural law, then it is a matter of case by case judgment that is permissible unless the specific situation makes it inadvisable. There's nothing in the Bible saying not to pray to saints and nothing in natural law that the practice contradicts, so the burden is on the one arguing for its immorality to clearly demonstrate its wrongness. You don't employ a hermeneutic of suspicion about human behavior; most of it is good unless done for bad motives.
Long story, Ken. I had just had enough. He said a bunch of junk about me in the Theft thread, then he claimed that I was personally attacking him when I replied, then he came after you. One simply tires of this after a while, especially after all the work I did in reconciling. "Just give it a rest," you know . . . that's how I feel. There are more factors, too, that are useless to get into publicly.
But I explained most of my reasoning in these comboxes somewhere.
Grubb: Praying to heavenly saints is never sanctioned in the Bible, nor is it encouraged. It's a practice that (even if it had its origins in the 2nd century) didn't become wide spread and common until after the 4th century.
Adomnan: Praying to the Holy Spirit is never sanctioned in the Bible, nor is it encouraged. It's a practice that (even if it had its origins in the 2nd century) didn't become widespread and common until after the 4th century.
Ken,
We honor Mary as she really is; more that you do, because we honor her in the right way -- according to Scripture.
Well, Peter Damian, doctor and saint, undoubtedly also honored the blessed Virgin according to Scripture. But his understanding of what constituted “according to scripture” differed considerably from that of our Protestants brothers. Consider the following story which Damian recounts regarding a certain monk – “Gozo” (or is that “Bozo”?!).
Damian to the community in the hermitage of Gamugno, May 1066.
(33) Let me tell you about another event that happened in the same monastery. It had been ordered, and for almost three years now it was the custom that each day the office of the ever-blessed Virgin be said in addition to the canonical hours. There was in the community a certain Gozo who was a monk by profession, an unworthy character, but a man of keen and brilliant talent. He began to argue that what St. Benedict had commended was more than enough and that recently contrived burdens should not be imposed on the brethren. Nor, said he, are we holier than the ancient Fathers, who had evidently judged these things unprofitable and superstitious and had set limits to our chanting and to all other regular observance. With the latter we should be content, so that they who carelessly turn from this norm may not be led into error by impassable detours.
(34) In a word, he insisted on opposing the Queen of the World, and achieved his purpose. By his adroit scheming he persuaded the brethren to abandon the customary veneration of the Blessed Mary. But the judgment of God is not unconcerned at our perverseness. Immediately such a hail of adversity, such a storm of wars and afflictions struck their monastery that menacing swords daily threatened the monks with death and destruction. On all sides there were raids and devastation; rural holdings with buildings and cottages went up in flames; dependents and serfs of that holy place were brutally killed. Not only the phantom of death, but death itself stalked its prey, so that the monks were overcome by the nausea of living, since in the crash of war they found it impossible to maintain the monastic office, so profitable to their peace. At no little cost the Emperor was reached in Germany and pragmatic sanctions bearing imperial seals were procured. {55} But no further help appeared. In all our endeavors, to be sure, it is not the effort but the result that counts.
(35) Hence, when the brethren continued to urge me to intervene as a mediator and, if possible, to arrange peace treaties between the combatants, I replied to their request, "Christ is our peace, of whom the angels proclaimed shortly after his birth of the Virgin: 'Glory to God in the highest and peace on earth. "' {56} Consequently, because they cast from their monastery the Mother of Peace itself, they deserved to be engulfed by the winds and the waves of tribulation and disaster.
(36) But lest
(36) But lest I unduly weary the reader - these monks were satisfied by no uncertain evidence that the words I spoke were true. Finding themselves in great need, they returned at last to their senses, humbly prostrated themselves on the ground, and after receiving a penance, unanimously promised henceforth never to neglect the customary praises of the Mother of God. Soon, indeed, if I may be excused the figure, after the storm such fair weather prevailed from that day until now, that the brethren enjoyed the calm of blessed peace and congratulated themselves at their rescue from the Scyllaean whirlpool, guided to port by the Virgin's Son. The saying of the prophet was truly fulfilled, "Return to me, and I will return to you, says the Lord." {57} Therefore, they who lightly tear up the statutes of their elders should bear these events in mind, and should fear with good reason lest the sword of God's anger come upon them.
Notes:
55. This account probably refers to the events of 1052-1055, when Duke Godfrey of Lorraine, who was married to Beatrice of Tuscany, revolted at the death of Duke Boniface. This occasioned Emperor Henry III's coming to Italy a second time. Cf. Herbert Grundmann, ed., Gebhardt Handbuch der Deutschen Geschichte, [Gebhardt Handbook of German History] 9th ed. (Stuttgart: Union Verlag Stuttgart, 1970), I, 318-19.
56. Luke 2:14
57. Mal. 3:7
58. Prov. 27:5
59. Prov. 29:1
Peter Damian, Letters (121-150), The Fathers of the Church: Medieval Continuation, 2004, Owen Blum, tr., Catholic University Press, vol. 6, letter 142, pp. 141-142. ISBN 081321372X
http://www.amazon.com/Letters-12...n/dp/
081321372X
http://books.google.com/books?id...r+damian%22&
lr=
Hello Grubb,
Me again. You didn't answer my question; Is more honour due to the Virgin than the Apostles?
Thanks.
You talked about the early churches one time. In the plural. There never was ONE church then? Like one organisation?
Hope your well,
To Ken,
Tim Enloe wants to get in touch with you. His e-mail address is:
tgenloe [at] gmail [dot] com
Thanks Dave.
I posted this in the "Lack of Prayer to te Holy Spirit..." conversation but figured I'd post it here too, since this is where we've had the bulk of the conversation.
Dave & Adomnan,
(please read this first paragraph humorously and with mock indignation)
Seriously? As much as I typed, and THAT'S all you put in there from me? I wrote the lion's share as I was interacting with Adomnan, Jonathan, Ben M, AND Dominicanis, and that's all I get? 3 puny sentences? And they weren't even good sentences!! What's up with that? Dominicanis shows up at the end, enters 1 or 2 comments, and he gets 8 stinkin' paragraphs. Why do I even bother?
(end of humorous mock indignation)
So let me get this straight. Dave, Adomnan, and nearly the entire Bible loving world agrees with my assessment of why it's ok to pray to Jesus and the Holy Spirit (since all 3 are fully God yet fully distinct, praying to one is like praying to all 3), yet you contend there's no Biblical support for it? That praying to all 3 violates sola scriptura? That's ridiculous! Since the Scriptures support praying to God and God is the Trinity, Scripture, therefore, supports praying to Jesus & the Holy Spirit. If I'm not mistaken, both Dave and Adomnan agree with that.
But there is no such connection between the heavenly saints and God. Therefore, praying to heavenly saints is NOT sanctioned by Scripture. Even Adomnan agreed that some things that aren't specifically condemned by the Bible are still disallowed. Psalms 103 and 148 don't even come close to supporting praying to an angel or heavenly saint. They merely state that the angels and heavenly host are praising God.
How do they praise God? We don't know! They might be singing songs; they might be playing harps; they might be playing soccer; they might be praying for people on earth (yes, I fully acknowledge they MIGHT be doing that); they might be lying prostrate worshipping God; or they might be doing something we've never heard of. We don't know!! Scripture doesn't tell us. To speculate they're praying for us is exactly that, pure speculation.
Dave said, We have the angels in heaven and what many commentators think are dead human beings ("24 elders") offering the prayers of the saints to God in Revelation 5:8 and 8:3-4. We have dead men praying for those on earth in Revelation 6:9-10.
Carrying a bowl of prayers is NOT necessarily praying for us. The heavenly saints in Rev 6:9 aren't praying for us (that we know of), they're simply asking God how long until He judges the wicked. That's a pretty big difference.
.
In the end, my position completely and accurately aligns with sola scriptura; in other words, I'm not contradicting myself. There IS Biblical support for praying to Jesus & the Holy Spirit (although I don't think I've ever prayed directly to the Holy Spirit), therefore it CAN be done; but there ISN'T Biblical support for praying to heavenly saints, therefore it SHOULDN'T be done.
I've thoroughly enjoyed discussing this with everyone, and now I'll finally turn my attention to the question James has been asking about honor due to Mary.
.
To get off the subject for a moment. Some archaeologists are claiming that they have discovered the oldest Christian church in the world in Jordan dating back potentially to 33AD: http://www.breitbart.com/article...&
show_article=1
From the limited information in the article, it doesn't sound like they are describing a Baptist meetin' room when they are talking about seating for clergy, mosaics, apses, access to a water source (i.e. "living water" aka "Holy Water" for Baptisms maybe?) and all. It will be interesting to see what other historical information can be derived pertaining to these early Christians' beliefs and liturgical practices. This early church was found underneath another church building that dates back to 230 AD.
Great info. Thanx!
I wrote earlier:
There is nearly an entire book (albeit small – like a mustard seed) in the New Testament devoted almost exclusively to the praise of saints.
The book to which I was referring was, of course, the Third Epistle of St. John. This little “book” is addressed to the “beloved Gaius.” v. 1.
I might note that, to me at least, the most striking feature of this epistle is the complete absence of praise for God, and the relative paucity with which His name is even mentioned as compared to the saints! Yet who would even think to dare accuse the saintly apostle of slighting his Creator?!!
Anyway, John begins his brief epistle by praising on his “beloved Gaius,” whose hospitality and love have been so exemplary as to have been witnessed to “before the Church.” v. 6. Indeed, Gaius’ good works have “earned” for him an honored place in Sacred Scripture! Imagine!!
The holy apostle then goes on to censure a certain Diotrephes (perhaps a bishop?) for not having “[received] the brethren,” and for casting those who do “out of the Church.” v. 10.
Finally, John resumes his praises of the saints by commending a certain Demetrius, saying of him that “[witness] is borne to Demetrius by all, and by the truth itself….” v.
12.
My point? Simply this: 3 John provides yet another great Scriptural witness to the importance of honoring the saints.
http://books.google.com/books?id...l4yr_8l6bMcb-
HU
http://books.google.com/books?hl...F-8&sa=N&
tab=wp
Dave (and everyone),
I also wrote:
Gotta get ready for an important court appearance out of town on Thursday (nothing serious, thank God!) But I do hope all goes well. Also, need to renew my drivers license (six month late), but because I'm legally blind in one eye, I don’t know if I'll pass the vision test this time. So for those reasons, I ask everyone within cyber-ear-shot of this combox to pray that everything works out ok.
Well, someone must have said a prayer or two (or perhaps you know who simply wanted this to happen regardless), because everything went curiously well indeed; I got my license renewed and, at my hearing, I was appointed legal guarding of my poor dear brother, on whose shoulders a terrible cross has, from birth, been laid (and Ben the sinner dares to complain!!). Anyway if any of my dear Catholic or Protestant friends perhaps did say a prayer for me, all I can say is you have my heartfelt thanks, and may the Good God bless and keep you!
And with God’s (you'll never know, my friends, how much needed) help, may I discharge my duties as guardian honorably.
James,
I'm stating right up front that this is really my initial in-depth look at honoring Mary, the Apostles, and other heavenly saints. I've discussed this topic briefly before and formed a preliminary opinion, and for the most part that opinion stands. I've read every passage in the NT that has the word honor or honorable in it to help get a better picture of what the Bible says about the topic. This is by no means the ultimate way to develop one's theology on a topic, but it's a very good starting point.
I'd normally start with a Biblical definition of "honor", but my Bible software crashed, and I can't get at it right now. If anyone knows a good website for biblical definitions, I'd love to have that.
There is a certain kind of honor due God and a certain kind of honor due men who are worthy. I trust everyone agrees we do not give honor due only to God to anyone else (note: this is where I think many who honor Mary get into trouble). Do we honor some men more than others? Children are told to honor their parents. (Exo 20:12, Mark 7:10) We're told to honor widows. (I Tim 5:3) We're told to give double honor to elders and pastors. (I Tim 5:17) Slaves are to honor their masters. (I Tim 6:1) We're also told to "Honor everyone." (I Pet 2:17a)
From all the passages I read in the NT, the only place I remember us being told to honor one man more than another was priests & elders. (I Tim 5:17) Between Mary and the Apostles, who were priests & elders? Interestingly enough, we're never told (in the NT) to honor anyone but men and God. There really is no mention of honoring angels or the dead...at least not using the word "honor". There may be other words like "esteem" or "praise" that suggest it. I'm sure it will be brought to my attention if there is.
I believe the RCC's assertion is that Mary is the noblest of created beings and should be honored more than any other created being. Is that right? What makes you think she's the noblest of created beings? Because she bore Jesus? Granted, Jesus was physically inside of her, but didn't Joseph have the greater responsibility? Teaching godliness has always been the father's responsibility; and it was up to Joseph to teach godliness to God incarnate. THAT seems like a pretty noble position, don't you think?
There's an old saying, "But for the grace of God, that could be me." It's God's grace and the lack of God's grace that enables a man to serve Him as he does. If God filled Mary, Joseph, Peter, John, and others with grace to serve Him like they did, who deserves the praise and honor? Ultimately God does.
Again, this is my initial stance. If you or anyone else can show me biblically why we should honor her above every human that ever lived or ever will live, I'll rethink my position.
.
@Grubb: http://eastonsbibledictionary.com/
This is part of the parallel bible online. I'm thrilled with it especially as it has a mobile version and 99% of my web reading is from my phone. Unfortunately I looked and it does not have the word, "Honor" in the dictionary.
@Ben M: Not boasting but confirming, yes, you were in my (short) prayers. And as my son from birth carries a great cross too that will necessitate him being in someone's care forever I will continue to pray for you and your brother.
And graciously accept any prayers others may offer for my son, my family or myself.
@Dave: I have followed much of the interaction between you and Tim and I note that what got Tim bumped was NOT one of his many backhanded insults to you yourself but rather a scurrilous attack on a fellow Protestant who is kind hearted enough to barely acknowledge the insult. Or, more accurately, Tim failed to come back and give any kind of public apology for a public insult. I think any blog is better served by leaving "true Christians" like Tim out and continuing to debate with "heathens" like Grubb and Ken Temple.
Paul,
Thats great news about the newly discovered church.
It reminds me of a story that I heard when the ramains of St Paul were discovered and Vatican officials were surprised to find a copy of the King James Bible tucked right under his arm.
Martin,
Ben M: Not boasting but confirming, yes, you were in my (short) prayers. And as my son from birth carries a great cross too that will necessitate him being in someone's care forever. I will continue to pray for you and your brother.
Thank you Martin. I’m sorry to hear that you too have a family member with a heavy cross. I will certainly keep both of you in my prayers.
Martin, I have another brother who, sadly, “detests” religion. Yet many years ago he heard the following story and, oddly enough, appeared moved as he told it to me (he does have his moments). I’ve found it somehow consoling. Maybe you’ll find something of value in it also.
---------
For some time, a young man had been complaining to the Lord about the weight of his cross. One day, the Lord appeared to him and asked, “Why are you troubled, my son?”
“My cross, O Lord, has become a great burden to me,” he replied.
“But son,” the Lord answered, “I have chosen this one especially for you.”
“But,” the young man persisted, “why must it be so heavy, and how have I deserved it?”
Upon hearing these words, the Lord said, “Very well, son; since you find your cross so burdensome, you may choose another.”
With that, the Lord showed the young man an enormous room in which all the crosses of all humanity were contained. As he looked around him, he beheld crosses of every imaginable size. And he was astonished to see so many of very great size indeed. Finally, after much searching, the young man noticed, in a distant corner of the room, a tiny cross which had been dwarfed by all the others.
“That one, Lord!” he shouted excitedly, pointing to the diminutive cross, “I’ll take that one!”
The Good Lord, looking at the young man with great affection said, “But son, that is your cross.”
----------
I suppose we all need to think about stories like this from time to time. I know I do.
Btw, I should have mentioned this earlier, but my brother, whose guardian I now am, was born with Down syndrome. Here’s a cell phone pic I took of him at the state facility where he has lived for many years. This was Christmas 2006.
http://thumbsnap.com/v/e1hRcZnV.jpg
Dear Grubb,
Thanks for the considered reply.
And I understand that it goes with your position that if it is not in the Bible then we should desist from doing something.
As I said before IT'S IN HER PERSON not for any other reason that she is to be honoured as she is. Because she is the Mother of God.
You equate this role with the teaching role of Saint Joseph? Really, are they comparable at all?
I doubt there is a passage explicity stating that Mary should be given special honour in the Bible. maybe my fellow catholics could help here,
Children are told to honor their parents. (Exo 20:12, Mark 7:10) We're told to honor widows. (I Tim 5:3) We're told to give double honor to elders and pastors. (I Tim 5:17) Slaves are to honor their masters. (I Tim 6:1) We're also told to "Honor everyone." (I Pet 2:17a)
In every case, that type of "honor" is based on the Greek timh, which connotes respect for office or station. So in some respect, we are to ignore station in life generally, honoring neither the rich nor the poor, but there are some who demand special respect on account of their station in Christianity, particularly the poor and the Apostles.
What is at issue here is not so much honor for an office, but to use the terms of Second Nicaea, "salutation and honorable reverence" (aspasmon kai timhtikhn proskunh-sin). The word group including aspasmon, connoting greeting or salutation, is frequently used with regard to Christians giving reverence and honor to other Christians, as in "Greet every saint in Christ Jesus" (Php. 4:21) and "Greet one another with a holy kiss" (Rom. 6:16, 1 Cor. 16:20, 2 Cor. 13:12, 1 Thess. 5:26, 1 Pet. 5:14). Paul singles out some for special honor; see, e.g., Rom. 16:3-15. So there is a tradition not only of honoring the office (in the sense of time), as in the case of double honor, but of special salutations and reverence both toward Christians generally and particular Christians on account of their work for the Lord, which is actually honor for God Himself in the grace that He gave them to do these things.
So the question is really what human has ever been blessed or even done anything or greater worth than being the handmaid (doule) of the Lord? No one! The angel calls her kerichatome, having received the greatest grace a human being could receive. And the receipt of this grace is the greatest Christian work in history: "And Mary said , Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word." (Luke 1:3. And what does the Bible say of her status as handmaiden: "For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed." (Luke 1:4.
That's the logic. We convey the greatest Christian respect, the highest salutation and honorable reverence, to the one who has received the greatest grace, the greatest opportunity to serve the Lord. Who in human history has ever received a greater opportunity than Mary to become the Mother of God? No one! As with any Christian, we do not venerate them for anything in themselves, but rather for their service to God. So says Jesus in a traditional reading on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, one of the shortest readings in the Lectionary:
"As he said this, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, 'Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that you sucked!' But he said, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and k
(cont.)
So says Jesus in a traditional reading on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, one of the shortest readings in the Lectionary:
"As he said this, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, 'Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that you sucked!' But he said, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!" (Luke 11:27-2.
The logic of Christian honor is all there, and all Biblical. That's all veneration of the Saints is: Christian honor. They are being honored for the great grace they have received from God, not on their own account. There is clear precedent that this sort of honor in no way detracts from the honor of God; rather, it *shows* honor for God. If you do not honor the grace God has manifested in the saints, there must be some natural question as to whether you acknowledge its existence. Otherwise, why wouldn't you honor it?
Martin,
Thanks for the website.
James,
It was my pleasure to research and reply. I'm sure there will be others who will reply on your behalf.
You equate this role with the teaching role of Saint Joseph? Really, are they comparable at all?
Do I think training a child in godliness is the same thing as birthing one? No. There is a bond between mother and child that is unlike any other. But there's also a bond between father and child unlike any other. I'm far closer to my dad than I am my mom. I'm not sure if it's because we're both men, because he spent so much time with us growing up, or what; but I'm closer to him than my mom.
Would you rather be born and not learn godliness (in other words, go to hell), or not be born at all? Of the two events, which is more dear to you? Being born, or being "born again?" Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting Jesus could have ever sinned, but rather pointing out that, in one sense, teaching godliness is as important as birthing a child.
We know very little about Joseph, but what we do know is that anytime he was told by God (via an angel or dream) to do something, he did it!! Just as Mary was obedient in letting God use her, so was Joseph. And he too was an earthly parent of Jesus. All these things lead me to believe that his role was just as important if not more so than Mary's role.
.
Jonathan,
The angel calls her kerichatome, having received the greatest grace a human being could receive
What does "kerichatome" mean?
When the woman said, "'Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that you sucked!' But he said, 'Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!'" could Jesus have been trying to keep people from honoring Mary above grace or from trying to honor her too much?
Who in human history has ever received a greater opportunity than Mary to become the Mother of God?
Joseph. He got to be his earthly father. Obviously Mary was blessed, but wasn't Joseph blessed too? I think I made a good case for Joseph having at least as high a level of grace as Mary in my comment to James, yet he isn't revered nearly as much as Mary is as far as I can tell.
The type of honor you wrote about doesn't offend me, nor does it seem unbiblical. There's nothing wrong with saying, "Of all the saints who have gone to heaven, Mary (in my opinion) received the most grace and greatest honor God could bestow on someone. Praise God for raising up Mary to serve Him." The primary focus is on God while the secondary focus is on Mary's position and obedience.
My big concern for those who are RC is that this kind of honor easily slips into Mary worship with all the prayers to her and attributing the role of mediator of all graces to her. We see it widespread in Mexico where Our Lady of Guadalupe Day (a day honoring Mary) is bigger than CHRISTmas and Easter (the days honoring Jesus). Let me qualify that statement. It came from a RC article I read by a priest up North. He said that Mexican immigrants in his parish turn out in much larger numbers for OLoG Day than for CHRISTmas and Easter; so I deduced that it's probably that way in Mexico too.
That's why I'm so guarded against honoring heavenly saints. I fully acknowledge they've received far greater grace than I have. I'm just a programmer trying to raise a family and preach the gospel. Joseph & Mary got to raise God incarnate and see their son change the world.
.
Dave,
I just posted 2 comments between 3:30 and 4:30 today to James and Jonathan but don't see them in the Open Forum.
Any idea what happened to them? I didn't save them, so I'll have to retype if they're not somewhere on your server.
Thanks,
Grubb
As soon as I posted my query, they appeared. Please disregard my comment.
.
"could Jesus have been trying to keep people from honoring Mary above grace or from trying to honor her too much?"
Grubb,
The real question is, "what is the proper basis for honor?" The person in the crowd seems to laud Mary simply for being Jesus' physical mother. Jesus corrects him. True blessedness comes from hearing God's will and keeping it. Incidentally, *that* is where Mary's blessedness lies. She does say, after all, that she is the handmaid of the Lord, "let it be done to me according to your will." Mary is consistently portrayed as an ideal contemplative and keeper of God's word. Her blessedness is in her openness and receptivity to God's word, and in her following and doing of God's will.
So there is no need to read this as a warning against honoring Mary. Rather, we ought to read it as giving the true real to honor Mary, rather than the false one.
-Rob
Grubb,
I just posted 2 comments between 3:30 and 4:30 today to James and Jonathan but don't see them in the Open Forum.
Same thing happened to me! I clicked on your comments in the "recent posts & comments" side bar, only to discover they were nowhere to be found in the forum! Same prob when I went into the open forum from the regular link.
And this has happened before with other peoples comments. Maybe some weird bug causing a delay in haloscan's servers?
Beats me. Sometimes there seems to be a delay.
Just a couple of articles of interest. First, on incense.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/
rele...80520110415.htm
And then this one on (the religion of) global warming. Seems the "debate" may not actually be "over" after all!
http://www.sciencedaily.com/
rele...80611184722.htm
Just a note: Late last year, I sent my Protestant (and liberal democrat) friend an email with some info on global warming published by NASA. Unfortunately, his being a hardcore “the debate is over” type, no rational follow-up discussion was to be allowed. The only response he deigned to give is this:
"Ben, I hope global warming in not a threat to our survival. Nobody wants that. Apart from this NASA study (part of the Bush Administration) and a few others, is seems like the rest of the scientific community, most governments, and even the oil companies have ended the debate. Of course it is the scientific community that brought and supports in part the theory of evolution as we have talked about. We may have a bigger immediate problem on our hands with the disappearance of the honey bees which pollinate much of our food. However, if you are hell bent on not buying into CO2 global warming and discounting the idea of it then you have the right to feel that way. Enjoy."
Yeah, I guess I really do need to be on my guard against that old Bush-NASA propaganda machine! Good grief.
Anyway, I sent him the above article(s). It’ll be interesting to see what he says about this latest development.
Ben,
For those of us old enough to remember the '70s, we can recall when they were worried about global cooling. Seriously. I remember being taught in school that a "little ice age" was probably coming. These are the same people who are now claiming global warming.
A coworker of mine pointed out to me they used to grow grapes in England a few hundred years ago, but then the weather got too cold for it. Now they're starting to grow grapes again. So we see that every few hundred years they can grow grapes in England for a period, then it stops. The earth's temperature cycles up and down. In fact, one of the things that fueled the Renaissance was prolonged warm weather. What caused global warming back then? CO2 emissions? Possibly. They're now saying cows put out more CO2 than cars do.
And recently I've heard, but haven't substantiated, that some (if not all) TREES produce CO2. Trees!!! So after we get rid of evil SUVs are we going to turn our attention to getting rid of evil cows and trees? They must be stopped after all.
I'm not a "bury your head in the sand" kind of guy and actually do wonder what effect the increased CO2 levels will have. The good news is God is a great God and is in control of even the weather, and nothing happens without His permission.
.
Dear Grubb,
It occurs to me when he went to the Temple at 12 years old (still a boy you would agree?) and told his father-'I have been about my Father's work', wasn't it Jesus who was teaching Joseph and not the other way round?
More fundamentally, the point I am trying to make with you is of the two systems, Catholicism, Protestantism, ours is the completest. We have her fixed. You may disagree where we have Her, but she fits into our system. Your problem is seems to me is that you don't know what to do with Her. You do not know where to place Her, and because of that, and in that sense, your system is incomplete.
Why is it important? Faith is from the Divine. Therefore the Faith must must be whole. You can't have pieces missing.
Something like that, I thought I had it like a mathematical formula but you will just say that if it's not in the Bible then it's not part of the Faith.Is that right?
God bless all here,
What does "kerichatome" mean?
As the most wooden literal translation, "having been completely gifted" or the equivalent.
When the woman said, "'Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that you sucked!' But he said, 'Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!'" could Jesus have been trying to keep people from honoring Mary above grace or from trying to honor her too much?
There's the speculation again; there is no evidence that this is the case. Rather, he seems to be rebuking the basis for honor, as if Jesus's gift of salvation were simply some sort of miraculous magic rather than the grace to serve God. There is no evidence whatsoever that there was any kind of tendency to venerate Mary personally. Indeed, one of the arguments Protestants frequently make is that there is no evidence of Marian veneration by Jesus's disciples in the Bible!
Joseph. He got to be his earthly father. Obviously Mary was blessed, but wasn't Joseph blessed too? I think I made a good case for Joseph having at least as high a level of grace as Mary in my comment to James, yet he isn't revered nearly as much as Mary is as far as I can tell.
First, I am surprised that you grew up Catholic and don't know of the traditions venerating St. Joseph. There is no question that behind Mary, St. Joseph is by far the most venerated Saint, even above the Apostles themselves. I myself took St. Joseph's name in Confirmation. So Catholic practice is very much consistent with the reasoning you have offered.
Second, it just seems to me that your logic is faulty in terms of importance, because you aren't evaluating matters in terms of importance to God's plan. Jesus growing in wisdom and stature was certainly a significant portion of His life, but what Mary provided was Jesus's very existence, and St. Joseph, who was not his natural father, had no role in that. She brought the Savior into the world.
While many people, of whom Joseph was certainly the foremost, helped Jesus grow in power and wisdom and spread His message, none were so crucial and central to God's plan of Redemption through service to Christ as Mary was. In terms of our salvation, it seems pretty logical that if St. Joseph doesn't play his role, Jesus probably would have made out OK, but if Mary doesn't play her role, there is no Jesus in the first place.
(cont.)
The type of honor you wrote about doesn't offend me, nor does it seem unbiblical. There's nothing wrong with saying, "Of all the saints who have gone to heaven, Mary (in my opinion) received the most grace and greatest honor God could bestow on someone. Praise God for raising up Mary to serve Him." The primary focus is on God while the secondary focus is on Mary's position and obedience.
That is exactly what we are saying. We follow the Biblical salutation of the angel "Hail, Mary, full of grace!" Even Paul boasts in his work for the Lord, so it doesn't take away from God in the least to respect someone as a recipient of Christian grace. You don't need to say "praise God for raising up X;" you can just honor X directly if you know the dogma behind it, which Paul explains extensively in his letters.
Every Marian dogma, for example, is about what she was given by God, not anything remarkable in herself. She herself even notes her "low station" and rejoices in the great grace God has given her despite her undeserving status.
My big concern for those who are RC is that this kind of honor easily slips into Mary worship with all the prayers to her and attributing the role of mediator of all graces to her. We see it widespread in Mexico where Our Lady of Guadalupe Day (a day honoring Mary) is bigger than CHRISTmas and Easter (the days honoring Jesus). Let me qualify that statement. It came from a RC article I read by a priest up North. He said that Mexican immigrants in his parish turn out in much larger numbers for OLoG Day than for CHRISTmas and Easter; so I deduced that it's probably that way in Mexico too.
Doesn't it make more sense, then, to point out the correct dogma, which I have outlined before, rather than throwing out the baby with the bathwater? Indeed, if rather than correcting people, you simply say not to do a valid and Biblical Christian act, it is likely to cause further confusion. Abuse does not prohibit use.
That's why I'm so guarded against honoring heavenly saints.
But the fact that you are guarded seems to be due to not having faith in the doctrine yourself. You know the truth, and you have seen the Biblical basis for it, so you don't need to be guarded against it. What is the need for guarding oneself against the truth?
We see it widespread in Mexico where Our Lady of Guadalupe Day (a day honoring Mary) is bigger than CHRISTmas and Easter (the days honoring Jesus). Let me qualify that statement. It came from a RC article I read by a priest up North. He said that Mexican immigrants in his parish turn out in much larger numbers for OLoG Day than for CHRISTmas and Easter; so I deduced that it's probably that way in Mexico too.
Christmas is mostly a marian feast. Sure it is about Jesus but all marian feasts are about Jesus. OLoG say is just as much about Jesus as Christmas. Both stories are about Mary giving us Jesus.
I do feel that Good Friday and Easter should be the central feasts of the church. Often Christmas is bigger in both Protestant and Catholic circles. That is because we find a baby Jesus easier to accept than the adult Jesus. People find the cross offensive.
I would say that it is easier to avoid the cross as a protestant then it is as a Catholic. Catholics have crucifixes, the sorrowful mysteries, the stations of the cross, lent, etc. As a protestant we might focus on the crucifixion once a year on Good Friday.
James,
The average Jewish boy enters manhood at 13, so for Jesus to be in the Temple asking intelligent questions could mean He was a year or two ahead of His peers. Did He have insight that His parents didn't? It would seem so, since they were confused by His answer. Here's what Luke 2:49-52 says, "'Why were you searching for me?' he asked. 'Didn't you know I had to be in my Father's house?' But they did not understand what he was saying to them. Then he went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them. But his mother treasured all these things in her heart. And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men." It's possible Joseph was still teaching Jesus at this point since Jesus was still growing in wisdom.
You do not know where to place Her, and because of that, and in that sense, your system is incomplete.
But we know where NOT to place her. We don't call her the co-mediator of all graces as the RCC does. That may be "complete", but it also violates scripture. I Tim 2:5 says, "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." How does that reconcile with Mary being co-mediator between God and men? It doesn't.
Besides, the comment Jonathan made yesterday sounded very close to what most reformed Christians would say about Mary: she was very blessed, she was shown great grace on earth, and should be honored. (obviously I'm being concise and paraphrasing) What he said yesterday was very similar to what I would say about her, unless I missed something in his comment.
Why is it important? Faith is from the Divine. Therefore the Faith must must be whole. You can't have pieces missing.
I don't understand what you mean by that. Mary isn't any more important to a Christian's faith than Joseph, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, Timothy, or John the Baptist are is she? She was obedient to God just as they were and received grace just as they did. If my belief about Mary is "She was probably the most godly woman that ever lived and the mother of God incarnate," have I denied the faith somehow? If so, how? Nowhere in scripture is faith linked to such a statement, is it?
.
Jonathan,
There's the speculation again; there is no evidence that this is the case.
Firstly, I don't think the speculation is too off the mark, because Jesus says "blessed rather are those..." Wouldn't an equal statement be, "No, blessed are those..." "Rather" is generally used to denote an opposing idea, right? If someone says let's play basketball, and you say you'd "rather" play football, you're opposing what the first guy wanted or stated.
Secondly, it's ironic you don't like my speculation based on Jesus using the word "rather," but you don't mind that the RCC has speculated the whole notion that Mary is to be prayed to and is co-mediator. Granted, the speculation started centuries ago, but it's still speculation.
In terms of our salvation, it seems pretty logical that if St. Joseph doesn't play his role, Jesus probably would have made out OK, but if Mary doesn't play her role, there is no Jesus in the first place.
I don't know if you intended that to be humorous, but the way you phrased it actually made me laugh. Mordecai said to Esther, "Do not think that because you are in the king's house you alone of all the Jews will escape. For if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance for the Jews will arise from another place, but you and your father's family will perish. And who knows but that you have come to royal position for such a time as this?" (Esther 4:12b-14) So if Mary had refused, God would have used someone else.
I'll have to address the 2nd part of your comment later. Have a great weekend guys.
.
Firstly, I don't think the speculation is too off the mark, because Jesus says "blessed rather are those..." Wouldn't an equal statement be, "No, blessed are those..." "Rather" is generally used to denote an opposing idea, right? If someone says let's play basketball, and you say you'd "rather" play football, you're opposing what the first guy wanted or stated.
OK, like, DUH, dude! I do know what "rather" means. What I'm saying is that you could apply this to Mary just as easily as anyone; she is not blessed on account of her body parts, but because she gave her permission "Let it be done to me according to your Word." It was her obedience to the will of God, not the fact that her body parts had been in contact with Jesus, that caused her to be labeled "blessed."
BTW, we know Mary is blessed, because Luke himself reports Mary's earlier statement that all generations will call her "blessed," and that she is called this for giving borth to Jesus. So given the context of the Gospel, Jesus clearly is not saying that Mary is NOT blessed because she gave birth to Him. Instead, He is saying why she can be rightly called "blessed," because of her obedience.
Secondly, it's ironic you don't like my speculation based on Jesus using the word "rather," but you don't mind that the RCC has speculated the whole notion that Mary is to be prayed to and is co-mediator. Granted, the speculation started centuries ago, but it's still speculation.
I have nothing against speculation in the sense of speculative theology. It's speculation about the existence of facts or circumstances without any evidence to drive the speculations that I find troublesome. Why would you think that Jesus was addressing a group that we have no evidence of existing?
So if Mary had refused, God would have used someone else.
But that would have been a different human aspect for the Word of God, because His humanity would have been taken from someone else. She was essential for the Word of God to be Incarnate as He actually was, and that is the cause of our actual salvation, so Mary's decision is responsible for our actual salvation regardless of what she might have otherwise done. She actually played a part in our redemption, and this is why we call her Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix of All Graces, and the like. Those aren't really speculative titles. It's a fact she gave birth to Jesus, which entitles her to all of them.
Jonathan wrote to Grubb, "And I understand that it goes with your position that if it is not in the Bible then we should desist from doing something."
Reading this thread, Dave's recent articles, and after considering something that Mr. Bridges said to me about Marian apparitions on another blog got me thinking, I have to wonder the following. Based on my recollection, I am not aware of anywhere in the Scriptures which told the Gospel writers to write down their accounts of Jesus' life or for that matter to write a "New Testament" at all. Since this not in the Bible, should not the early Church have desisted in that as well? It is easy for us Catholics to say that the Holy Spirit inspired them to do so, since we believe in an authoritative Church, but how can someone who uses the standard "if it is not expressly written in Scripture, one can not do it" get around this problem without being contradictory?
Grubb,
I'm not a "bury your head in the sand" kind of guy and actually do wonder what effect the increased CO2 levels will have.
Grubb, take a look at this picture.
http://webwormcpt.blogspot.com/2...-co2-
field.html
Pretty messy, huh? Same could be said for this one. http://www.ecofriend.org/entry/c...-a-useful-fuel/
The idea here is to associate images such as these with carbon dioxide is in order to convince the general public that carbon dioxide is a horrible thing. You can find other similar deceptive pictures by typing “carbon dioxide” in Google’s image search.
But if you really want to see what carbon dioxide looks like, take a deep breath and exhale. See anything? Of course not, despite your having just exhaled a lungful of carbon dioxide! That’s because CO2 is invisible! It is not a hideous black billowing cloud of soot as the media would have us believe.
Now I’m not saying we shouldn’t be good stewards of the earth – indeed we should! But I do think that there is certain amount of overreaction and outright dishonesty associated with the whole global warming issue (and even my hardcore GW friend, since he believes NASA has prostituted itself to the Bush administration, must admit, by the force of his own reasoning, that there must indeed be not a few scientist who are more than willing to whore themselves out to the highest bidder!). That being the case, who but a complete fool would trust anything the “scientific community” has to say? But I suppose your average scientist is no more or no less corrupt than the average vile politician worshiped by so many benighted souls.
But don’t get me wrong, I adore true science. I just think GW has been overrated. But check out for example, this article and decide for youself.
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE...ew&
pageId=64734
Re: The honor paid to Mary.
Grubb, keep the following in mind:
The honor accorded to blessed Mary is based, not on how well she raised the Christ child, or on any other work she may have done, before or after the Annunciation. Rather, her honored and privileged position it is based solely on the fact of divine unmerited grace!
My protestant friend once asked, “What did Mary do” to become so highly honored? My answer? “Nothing!” She did not need to “do” anything!
She simply had a great honor bestowed upon her! Period! Pure unmerited grace!!! Pure unmerited grace!
But you see, my friend had completely missed the point, despite his incessant ranting about “grace” this and “grace” that and “we don’t have to do anything to be saved,” and “I’m as holy as Mary” and “she was not a perpetual virgin cause Joseph ‘nailed’ her good after Jesus was born (slamming his hands together to emphasize this particularly vulgar point)” and the “gospel” is not about “works righteousness” and the Catholic Church teaches we have to “earn our salvation” and
and “I can commit murder and rape all day long but I’m still saved” on and on and on and on and on and on … until (God in heaven!!) one thinks he’ll go mad listening to such unremitting inanities!! But do I digress?
Well, anyway, God, for his own inscrutable reasons, chose to bestow upon Kecharitomene the highest honor. So whether St. Joseph spent more or less time with Jesus, or even whether he was the child’s sole teacher is utterly irrelevant.
Mary was chosen. Period! Just as Moses was chosen. Period! Just as Elisha, David, John the Baptists, St. Paul and St. Peter were chosen. Period!
You appear to have fallen into “works righteousness” and have forgotten the “free grace” of the Gospel!
Seek to understand the concept of divine election and be not like those who “scorn to call her blessed.”
http://books.google.com/books?hl...er%20blessed%
22
Note also dear friend (and this is very important I believe) that blessed Mary said all generations shall call her blessed. All generations! Think about it! That in and of itself is quite a statement, is it not? I mean, all during those long dark centuries in which the gospel was “hidden” (according to Protestant theory), God nevertheless had decreed that honor to the Blessed Virgin (as history has indeed shown) should never be effaced from the heart and minds of men! A strange kind of Providence indeed, don’t you think?
Anyway, a least consider all this my friend. And pray about it! For ultimately, only grace can remove those barriers which reason(s) cannot.
Peace.
Grubb,
'But we know where NOT to place her.' you wrote. OK, you admit then that you don't know where to place her? You only know where NOT to place her.
If you don't know where to place her, how can you be sure you really know where not to place her? In such a situation, the most you can hope for is to know at least one, perhaps a few, of the places where not to place her -- but you might also believe she shouldn't be placed in a spot where she should be.
Grubb wrote
So if Mary had refused, God would have used someone else.
Gilbert writes
Would you care to speculate how many women were chosen and refused before Mary accepted?
Eve perhaps?
If you believe in irristible grace how do you square that with the above statement?
Thank you for your contribution to this site it is greatly appreciated.
God bless you
Dave et al.,
I'd like to inite you all to check out the June issue of my ejournal: The Contrarians' Review.
www.thecontrariansreview.com
Grubb,
Greetings and well wishes.
"Rather" is generally used to denote an opposing idea, right? If someone says let's play basketball, and you say you'd "rather" play football, you're opposing what the first guy wanted or stated.
Incorrect. According to dictionary.com, there are several definitions to "rather." Some of the definitions allow for an alternative idea, but not the the mutually exclusive extent that your context seems to attempt. So you are creating an opposition where one does not need to exist. Even in your own example, the only value which you have placed on playing basketball is that you prefer it less than football (at the particular moment). We are left completely clueless as to whether you would want to play basketball if for some reason the preference for football was unobtainable. Why? Because your comparison is relative, not exclusive.
Let's keep with the sports theme and try to parallel the Scripture a little more closely. Suppose you and I were to see Michael Jordan and I were to exclaim, "A great athlete is one who can play professional baseball!" But you were to counter with, "Jamie, great rather is an athlete who can play professional basketball." Your correction of my exclamation would allow me to see Michael Jordan for his true athletic greatness rather than his relativly unremarkable minor leage professional baseball career. However, it's shown by actual demonstration that being a professional basketball player is not mutually exclusive from being a professional baseball player. And the use of "rather" would not make, nor imply, mutual exclusivity in this context as Michael Jordan did both.
It is the same with Mary. She both physically bore our saviour and humbly submitted to and did the will of the Lord. The two acts are not mutually exclusive, however it is the latter one, rather than the former which makes her blessed. My own use of "rather" in the previous sentence corrects an impression and provides the correct alternative. The context of Scripture is the same usage. But in neither case does the context create even the implication of exlusivity.
In His Name,
Sorry I've been absent since last Friday guys. I got a tough assignment at work which has taken all of my time. I'll try to comment tomorrow morning.
Thanks for your patience.
.
Ben,
I don't think I'd have too much in common with your protestant friend who said he could murder and rape all day long and still be saved. Jesus said "Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit." (Matt 12:33)
Mary was chosen. Period! Just as Moses was chosen. Period! Just as Elisha, David, John the Baptists, St. Paul and St. Peter were chosen. Period!
You appear to have fallen into “works righteousness” and have forgotten the “free grace” of the Gospel!
It's not that I've fallen into "works righteousness"; in fact, it's just the opposite. I believe, as you do, that all the people you mentioned were chosen BY GOD; and He was the one who imparted the grace to them. In fact, I stated that very sentiment early on to James.
My question is this (to you and everyone else), why is Mary's grace or position greater than David's? God promised that David's line would sit on the throne forever. Why is Mary's grace or position greater than Joseph's? She was His earthly mother, he was His earthly father. Why isn't Joseph's grace and position as great as hers?
Anyway, a least consider all this my friend. And pray about it! For ultimately, only grace can remove those barriers which reason(s) cannot.
On this, we agree 100%
.
James and Jordanes,
OK, you admit then that you don't know where to place her? You only know where NOT to place her.
When I said, "We know where NOT to place her," I was trying to drive home the point that the RCC has placed her in an inappropriately high position by saying she's co-mediator.
I can't speak for every Reformed Christian, but I believe Mary is due the same honor Moses, David, Esther, and Paul are. Each was called for a specific purpose and submitted their lives to God's calling. If I believed as you do that she was born without original sin and remained sinless her whole life, I'd definitely raise her above the rest, but there's no Biblical support for those claims; so I honor her the same as all the patriarchs and matriarchs of the Christian Church.
Jordanes, how do you pronounce your name? I've never seen it before. Is it simply Jor-danes, or is it Jor-don-es, or Hor-danes? I've been wanting to ask for a while just so I have it right when I read it. I hope you don't mind me asking.
.
Gilbert,
Thanks for commenting; I really enjoy hanging out here and discussing these topics with my friends.
Would you care to speculate how many women were chosen and refused before Mary accepted?
Nope. How many women were chosen and refused before Esther accepted and spoke to the king? None...that we know of.
Irresistible grace and free-will coexist perfectly, and God knows how. Grubb does not.
.
Jamie,
Good to hear from you. It's been a while. I hope things are well with you too.
I wasn't trying to imply Jesus was saying Mary wasn't blessed. We all know she was...including the woman in the crowd. My point was that Jesus appeared to have been trying to get the focus of what being blessed truly is: hearing and obeying the Word of God.
If I remember correctly, someone used Luke 11:28 to show how even the people of Jesus' day venerated Mary, because she birthed Jesus; but I was trying to show that Jesus put a larger emphasis on salvation (aka hearing and obeying the Word of God). If Jesus wanted her venerated as the RCC does now, he could have easily said, "You're correct madam. Blessed is my mother Mary for birthing me." But He didn't; He shifted the focus to salvation.
.
Should not Jesus have just told them to call nobody blessed? I mean that is what you object to with venerating the saints. Why doesn't Jesus command us to never venerate such people?
I don't get how you connect salvation with hearing and obeying the word of God. Have you given up on Sola Fide? Should he not have said blessed are those who have faith and don't try and save themselves by hearing and obeying God's word?
I seems quite strange to suppose there was veneration of Mary when she was still alive. Protestants often talk about how late Marian devotion came. Now they want to put it right back in the first century? Marian devotion came after the questions about who Jesus is were addressed. Early on the liturgical year began with the baptism of Jesus. Christmas was not a feast day in the very early church. Then people reflected on the incarnation and realized the story begins with Jesus' birth and not His baptism. Then they reflected further and decided the story really begins with Mary. So Marian devotion in the first century would not make sense because all this development had not yet occurred.
Grubb,
My question is this (to you and everyone else), why is Mary's grace or position greater than David's? God promised that David's line would sit on the throne forever.
St. Jerome wrote:
“Elizabeth and Zacharias ... may teach us how far they are beneath the holiness of blessed Mary, the Lord's Mother, who, conscious that God was dwelling in her, proclaims without reserve, "Behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed..." Where, observe, she says she is blessed not by her own merit and virtue, but by the mercy of God dwelling in her. And John himself, a greater than whom has not arisen among the sons of men, is better than his parents. For not only does our Lord compare him with men, but with angels also. And yet he, who was greater on earth than all other men, is said to be less than the least in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matt. 11:11) - Against the Pelagians (Book I). http://www.newadvent.org/fathers...thers/
30111.htm
Mary, therefore, “defaults” as it were, to the greater position simply by virtue of her being a member of the kingdom of heaven.
Why is Mary's grace or position greater than Joseph's?
To be sure, St. Joseph is enormously honored in the Church. But again, Mary has been accorded the highest honor in virtue of the fact she was chosen to be the mother of the Lord. And what possible higher honor can there be than to have beenchosen to have the Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity dwell within one?
But again, Jerome:
“In paradise Eve was a virgin, and it was only after the coats of skins that she began her married life....To show that virginity is natural while wedlock only follows guilt, what is born of wedlock is virgin flesh, and it gives back in fruit what in root it has lost. "There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a flower shall grow out of his roots." The rod is the mother of the Lord — simple, pure, unsullied; drawing no germ of life from without but fruitful in singleness like God Himself.” - letter 22:19 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers...ers/
3001022.htm
Augustine too recognized the Virgin's tremendous privilege:
“We used our immortality so badly as to incur the penalty of death: Christ used His mortality so well as to restore us to life. The disease was brought in through a woman's corrupted soul: the remedy came through a woman's virgin body.” - On Christian Doctrine (De Doctrina Christiana) Bk I, ch. 14.
Another translation:
“We made bad use of immortality, and so ended up dying; Christ made good use of mortality, so that we might end up living. When a woman’s mind was corrupted, the disease entered in; from a woman’s body preserved intact, health and salvation issued forth.” – Teaching Christianity, The Works of St. Augustine, part I, vol., 11, p. 112. ISBN 156548049X
http://www.amazon.com/Teaching-C...e/dp/
156548049X
http://www.liveleak.com/view?
i=d...=d2e_1213570058
What kind of Catholic church is this? Is that a statue (idol) of the Virgin Mary? Is it a trad. or rad . trad. or Vatican 2 type church? What country/language/culture?
Is that kind of thing OK ? carrying a stature down the aisle in a kind of procession that looks like worship for it; and singing praises to it. Is it Mary? Baby Jesus is not even in her arms, etc.
Amazing violations of Scripture.
"Is that a statue (idol) of the Virgin Mary?"
It's hard to tell who exactly it depicts-- although the Blessed Virgin is usually a good guess in Catholic settings. But it's definitely not a "statue (idol)". Just a statue (statue).
"carrying a stature down the aisle in a kind of procession that looks like worship for it; and singing praises to it."
I imagine if pagans were watching David and the people dance and sing before the Ark, as they led it in procession, they might wonder what exactly was going on-- was he worshiping the beaten cherubim atop the ark? Of course, we know he wasn't, nor were the people. But what something "looks like" to someone who doesn't know better can be misleading. Don't be too quick to judge.
-Rob
Dear Ken,
Mmmm...visiting catholic Churches. Even on the web. One might suspects your motives.
Randy,
Firstly, I should clear up a possible misunderstanding on my part. I thought "venerate" simply meant to regard highly or to hold someone in high esteem. Some definitions in Dictionary.com agree with my understanding of that word, but some suggest revering someone as hallowed or holy. When I say venerating someone, I'm going with the definition of just holding someone in high regard or esteem.
Should not Jesus have just told them to call nobody blessed? I mean that is what you object to with venerating the saints. Why doesn't Jesus command us to never venerate such people?
I'm blessed. You're blessed. Anyone who has felt God's grace, whether salvific or common, has been blessed. I don't have a problem calling Mary blessed.
I don't get how you connect salvation with hearing and obeying the word of God.
From our perspective, isn't that what denotes someone as a "believer"? Obviously salvation is the free gift from God, but we never look at anyone who has neither heard the Word nor obeyed it and say, "That man has salvation." Rom 10:17 says, "Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ." And Rom 2:13 says, "For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous." And James says essentially "faith without works is dead." It doesn't do any good to have faith in the wrong thing (like a totem pole), so we must have faith in the right thing. That won't come without hearing the right thing. And simply hearing doesn't produce faith. Application (or obedience) is what shows and proves our faith is real. That's how I connect salvation with hearing & obeying.
I seems quite strange to suppose there was veneration of Mary when she was still alive.
I'm not sure if that's what Jonathan was suggesting when he quoted Luke 11:27-28, but he was the one who brought up that passage. I was merely responding to his comment.
.
Hi Ken, I could be wrong but based on the statue's garb and the little halo it sported, it does not appear to be a statute of Mary that I know of.
However, it is dismaying to see someone refer to a plaster statue as an "idol". I didn't see anyone in the video bowing down before it, offering animal sacrifices or sacrificing their children or their virginity before it, or even offering it food which are the usual sorts of things that folks who violate God's law and worship false idols do. (See e.g. the Deuterocanonical version of Daniel (Bel and the Dragon) which specifically spells out what worship of idols actually consists of. Heck, the statue didn't even appear to be graven, it looked like it came out of a ceramic mold. Thus, I would humbly suggest that the statue was not being worshipped there.
By the way, when an American flag passes you by at a parade or during the National Anthem, do you not take your hat off and place your hand over your heart or salute it (if in uniform)? In your church, do you have the American flag placed in on the speaker's right or if you have a flag pole outside do you lower the flag to half-mast to commemorate someone's death such as during 9/11 or keep a spotlight on it after dark? Have you ever seen a flag raising or flag lowering ceremony while in the military or the boy scouts?Did you know that "Taps" that is played in connection with such ceremonies is actually a religious hymn with words? Why do we have a honor guard at the tomb of the unknown soldiers? Does not your town have statues of deceased war heroes or significant historical personages or graveyards where wreathes are laid before our honored war dead? Have you ever put flowers on the graves of your parents or loved ones?
Can you explain to me what the ACTUAL difference between those acts of worship of the American flag, symbols, or deceased Americans and the acts we do in connection with Mary and the saints? I would suggest that there is not a lick of difference between those actions and the honor we accord our nation's symbols, our veterans and significant historical figures, or our deceased loved ones. Our saints and martyrs are Christianity's "war heroes" and significant historical personages of our church community and the Cross is most certainly our flag. We show them the same kind of respect and honor to a similar degree we do our national and community symbols and not the kind of worship reserved solely for our God.
I hope the analogy helps.
God bless!
it does not appear to be a statute of Mary that I know of.
So, what could it be? It is obviously a woman, right? I am not trying to be offensive or insulting; but the whole thing seems ridiculous.
By the way, when an American flag passes you by at a parade or during the National Anthem, do you not take your hat off and place your hand over your heart or salute it (if in uniform)?
That is a pretty good point, and I can see why the Jehovah's Witnesses tried to be consistent on that issue and so, I think, they teach their people not to participate in such things.
However, the American flag salute and pledge of allegiance at a baseball game and army/navy/marines context or civic meeting or patriotic or political rally are not church or worship contexts; so everyone knows the context is NOT worship. However, in church, when there is a statue/icon/picture of Jesus and Mary and people are bowing and praying and genuflecting and lighting candles, this gives the appearance of worship/latrea.
Can you explain to me what the ACTUAL difference between those acts of worship of the American flag, symbols, or deceased Americans and the acts we do in connection with Mary and the saints? I would suggest that there is not a lick of difference between those actions and the honor we accord our nation's symbols, our veterans and significant historical figures, or our deceased loved ones. Our saints and martyrs are Christianity's "war heroes" and significant historical personages of our church community and the Cross is most certainly our flag. We show them the same kind of respect and honor to a similar degree we do our national and community symbols and not the kind of worship reserved solely for our God.
I hope the analogy helps.
those acts of worship of the American flag, symbols, or deceased Americans and the acts we do in connection with Mary and the saints?
those are not acts of worship . . .
Those are partial analogies and I can see how you could justify things with those actions. The problem is the statues/icons of Mary, who is a human, are mixed right there in the same context of a worship service with an altar, and statues/pictures of Jesus. There is such a mixture of them together; and if other saints like Stephen and Peter and Paul or Aquinas are there in statue form also, and the person is praying to the Father, God, and also in the same context asks for St. George's help or St. Christopher's help or prays hail Mary's and says "I am fully devoted to you" and "you are my guide" and "pray for me", etc.; since these are figures of humans, statues, these seem to be mixture of prayers and praises to God along with prayers and praises to other humans in a worship context.
Everyone knows that the American flag and saluting is not worship; rather the statues of mary and the saints and prayers to their spirits really look a compromise of mixing worship to God with worship to humans.
Jimmy Akin and others have said, "Unless you have done the experience (of RC worship to God alone and dulia and hyperdulia to Mary and the saints; you just cannot judge it. That seems to me to be an escape valve to subjective experience in which the person of course cannot say much because they have escaped to subjective experience. Anyway, if the statue was plastic or ceramic, that does not matter -- (rather than graven -- carved) because they did not have that technology back then. Same principle.
To help the poor is to honor God. Proverbs 14:31
Ken,
The problem is the statues/icons of Mary, who is a human, are mixed right there in the same context of a worship service with an altar, and statues/pictures of Jesus.
Yes, Mary is human, but she is also a sacred being, inasmuch as she now enjoys the beatific vision (no small matter!), and has become a “partaker in the divine nature.” 2 Peter 1:4 Indeed, to the extent possible to a mere creature, she has “become like God.”
And to “become like God” is, of course, the destiny of all the elect.
“…Love thou therefore your enemy: for you are doing good not to him, but to yourself. How? You are becoming like God.”
- Chrysostom, Homily 19 on Hebrews.
“… blessed Xystus, bishop of Rome and martyr of Christ, as having said, ‘God has conferred upon men liberty of their own will, in order that by purity and sinlessness of life they may become like God?’” – Augustine, On Nature and Grace, ch. 77.
“For, if a man be only in name called holy, he is not holy; but he must be holy in everything: in his body and in his spirit. And those who are virgins rejoice at all times in becoming like God and His Christ, and are imitators of them.” - Clement, Two Epistles on Virginity, Ep. 1:8.
“For He makes not mention here of earth … but of that which was more thrilling than all; our becoming like God … For He says, That ye may become like your Father which is in Heaven.” – Chrysostom, Homily 18 on Matthew, 4:4.
Now Scripture is certainly used in the “context of a worship service.” But this same Scripture also accords honor and even “worship” to men, as the following from bishop Aphrahat’s (ca. 270–ca. 345) “Demonstrations” shows. And so I'm perplexed by your difficulty.
Demonstration 17 (Of Christ the Son of God).
3. For the venerated name of Godhead has been applied also to righteous men, and they have been held worthy to be called by it. And the men with whom God was well pleased, them He called, My sons, and My friends….
5. For the name of Divinity is given for the highest honour in the world, and with whomsoever God is well pleased, He applies it to him….
6. … God called … Nebuchadnezzar, King of Kings. … Though He is the great King, He grudges not the name of Kingship to men. And (so), though He is the great God, yet He grudged not the name of Godhead to the sons of flesh. … And though authority is His, He has given men authority one over another. And while worship is His unto honour, He has yet allowed it in the world, that one man should honour another….
8. And this honour of worship God has given to the sons of Adam, that by it they might honour one another— especially those who excel and are worthy of honour among them….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphrahat
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers...hers/
370117.htm
Hi Ken, it is a statue of someone, but since the face is not really visible, I am not 100% sure who the statue is of. The Catholic Church does recognize other women as saints besides Mary.
You said, "Everyone knows that the American flag and saluting is not worship; rather the statues of mary and the saints and prayers to their spirits really look a compromise of mixing worship to God with worship to humans."
You still haven't explained the difference. Under your expansive definition of "worship", the action of saluting the flag, etc, would certainly be worship. The only difference in your analysis is the fact that it is Catholics who are doing it. So if I am understanding you correctly, if a Catholic shows respect to Mary or the saints, that is worship because "everyone knows it" but if someone respects the flag, it is not worship because "everyone knows it." The "everyone knows it" test seems to me to be a tad subjective and smacks of compromising to allow people to worship God as well as things humans have created. I don't believe that under your definition of worship, you can have it both ways. However, since Catholics can and do distinguish between the honor shown a created being or thing versus the adoration shown our God, we have no problem with it.
Well, using your "everyone knows it" test, who is the "everyone"? Do I count? I do know that respecting the flag is not worship just like I know that respecting Mary and the saints are not acts of worship BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT SAINTS AND MARY ARE NOT GODS AND WE DON"T PRETEND OTHERWISE. It is only Protestants who pretend that Mary and saints are gods so they can claim we worship them. I gave you clear-cut examples of what worshipping statues entails from the Deuterocanonical version of Daniel and from the OT. We don't do any of those things.
Comment cont.
What I really think Ken is that since we do not live in a culture where we are surrounded by pagans who worship false gods (Romans, Greeks, Philistines, Moabites, etc.) it is hard for some to understand what "worship" consists of. As a Catholic whose Church was founded by Christ himself and is 2000 years old, my Church remembers what that means and hasn't lost that understanding. We are able to separate and distinguish the difference between the honoring of created things and beings and honor reserved for the Creator of all things.
However, you do bring up a good point. There are those people who do ascribe magical powers to a saint or to Mary and those people should not be doing so. In such instances, it would be proper and perhaps even mandatory to correct them. I will try to expand upon this later but I am late getting to work now and have to try to pay the bills.
Hi Ben, thanks for the examples from scripture and the ECF's and in saying better what I was trying to say!
I had some more time to think about the issue of whether Catholics "worship' statues...If a Jew bows before the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem, is he praying to it? Or can anyone distinguish between the actions that many Christians do (including Protestants) in regards to deceased loved ones and the actions of certain Japanese sects that engage in ancestor worship?
Like the Pharisees, people who fulminate against Catholics honoring of Mary and the saints seem to be worried solely about the externals and not what is in the heart. See, Mt. 15:8-9. We Catholics know that we are not worshipping a diety when we honor a saint, nor are we attempting to do so. By honoring Mary and the saints, we honor the Creator who made them.
Question for everyone.
I am a student in Biblical Studies at the University of Edinburgh. I really enjoy reading a lot of popular level apologetics (Shea, Howard, Keating, Kreeft, Dave, etc.), but I am hungry for something a bit more scholarly.
Does anyone - Protestant or Catholic - have any suggestions? I would like to see solid exegetical work, paying attention to context, language, linguistics, and history. The things I am most interested in are: Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, and the Eucharist.
Any help would be appreciated.
Blessings in Christ to all,
BJ
Stupid Scholar
Daily Bible Reflections
Paul,
Like the Pharisees, people who fulminate against Catholics honoring of Mary and the saints seem to be worried solely about the externals and not what is in the heart.
I've stated multiple times that my big concern with praying to heavenly saints and honoring Mary as RCs do is it can lead them to worship the created beings more than the Creator. Not sure I said those exact words, but that's the gist of it.
I've quoted (and so has Ken) prayers that seem so at odds with the prayers of Jesus and the Patriarchs that it's hard to consider them as worshipping God. They really do seem to elevate the heavenly saints to a position that's inadvisable and unwarranted Biblically. While the appearance of evil is an issue that's very serious and shouldn't be ignored, my (and I believe Ken's too) biggest concern is for how praying to heavenly saints & angels, bowing before statues, and honoring Mary more than one should affects the heart of the average RC. Do these actions detract from worship and honor that is due only to God? I believe they do.
I'm not just here for a good argument. I truly am concerned for the hearts of those who are in the RCC. Many of y'all that I've had discussions with have reflected long and hard on these things and may have guarded your hearts against worshipping the created more than the Creator, but I'm concerned the average RC hasn't. Plus, even if one guards against worshipping the created, if he's doing something that inherently worships the created (like elevating Mary to co-mediator), no amount of guarding will keep him from worshipping the wrong thing more than he should.
.
Ken,
You said:
"However, the American flag salute and pledge of allegiance at a baseball game and army/navy/marines context or civic meeting or patriotic or political rally are not church or worship contexts; so everyone knows the context is NOT worship. However, in church, when there is a statue/icon/picture of Jesus and Mary and people are bowing and praying and genuflecting and lighting candles, this gives the appearance of worship/latrea."
But how do you answer my objection regarding the Israelites and the Ark of the Covenant? After all it's a gilded wooden box, with beaten cherubim atop it. When the Israelites worshiped the Lord, who was seated invisibly atop the throne, wouldn't it appear that they were worshiping the cherubim?
The context here *is* worship. And there are huge statues of angels. Doesn't this equally "give the appearance of worship?"
Also Ken, my second point. If you make exceptions to the law, why not make others? After all, the law plainly says don't make graven images. But it's already to make images in non-religious contexts? The law doesn't say that. But if we're going to interpret the law as to what it *means* according to the Spirit, then there's no reason to rule out the proper place of statues in the context of worship except by special pleading.
BJ Buracker-- have you heard of the "new perspectives on Paul?" From what I've heard of this scholarship (and it's not "Catholic" scholarship), it tends to move away from a 16th century Protestant understanding of Paul, and is more compatible with Catholic views. I think I saw Marshall Taylor discussing N.T. Wright with regards to this on his blog. There are probably others. This might help with 'sola fide.'
As for sola scriptura and the Eucharist... I'm not really quite sure.
-Rob
When the Israelites worshiped the Lord, who was seated invisibly atop the throne, wouldn't it appear that they were worshiping the cherubim?
But it was kept inside the Holy of Holies, and only the high priest once a year could go in there. Show me verses in the OT where they bowed down in from of it on the way to putting it in the tabernacle/temple. (there may be some; I am not aware of it.) Even if there is, the strict monotheistic teaching is clear; whereas in RCC the emphasis on Mary and all makes things much more unclear.
As Mohammad thought what the Christians beleived -- Surah 5:116 -- that the Father, the Son, and the Mother are the Trinity. The whole RCC/EO history was a bad testimony and a bad witness to the Muslims.
But, I can see your point about the arc and cherubim; and usually this discussion always goes towards this. My friend Rod Bennett said the same thing. (author of Four Witnesses) And others said the same thing on this forum long time ago.
I guess that is one reason why God did away with the temple and pilgrimages to Jerusalem. John 4:21-24
The New covenant and the church - local gatherings of believers in all nations- is the NT model for the context of worship. There is no thing like the OT temple/sacrifices/priests/altar/arc of coveneant/cherubim/gold, etc. for the NT church. God did away with all that those things. That is the bottom line, you are using an OT paradigm to justify false practices for the NT era, when there are clear indications that that is wrong. John 4:21-23; Hebrews chapters 8, 9, 10, 11, 12; Galatians 4:26; Romans 2:28-29; I Peter 2:4-10 (all saints, believers are priests).
I think that is a good principle and indicates Protestantism is closer to the NT model than RCC, with its emphasis on the place and physical external things, rituals, worship, statues, icons, prayers to Mary and the saints, mass and trans. and priests.
I believe the God of the Bible was grieved at that statue being carried and paraded down the isle and He judged it right in front of their eyes.
I guess that is one reason why God did away with the temple and pilgrimages to Jerusalem. John 4:21-24
I can't agree with your above statement, Ken.
This indicates that God realized He made a mistake and had to change His mind. It implies that He didn't see this abuse coming and had to react to it.
It is obvious that God permitted graven images. He even commanded that they be fashioned. His only reservation was that people not bow down and worship them. It is the worship of the graven images that is forbiden, not the fashioning of them.
Ken,
" But it was kept inside the Holy of Holies, and only the high priest once a year could go in there. Show me verses in the OT where they bowed down in from of it on the way to putting it in the tabernacle/temple. (there may be some; I am not aware of it.) Even if there is, the strict monotheistic teaching is clear; whereas in RCC the emphasis on Mary and all makes things much more unclear."
Usually it was. But in 2 Samuel 6 the Ark is led in procession.
It says, "while David and all the Israelites made merry before the LORD with all their strength, with singing and with citharas, harps, tambourines, sistrums and cymbals."
And, "As soon as the bearers of the ark of the LORD had advanced six steps, he sacrificed an ox and a fatling.:"
It's funny that you should mention that it was usually kept inside the tent. You are right. But wouldn't this make it all the more dangerous? The people of Israel-- if indeed your interpretation about there being no statues except the ones in the Holies of Holies is right-- would have never seen a statue before, certainly not in the context of worship. And then suddenly, "all the picked men of Israel, thirty thousand in number" (2 Sam 6:1) see the Ark and the cherubim for the first time. If anything, on your reasoning it would be a danger for David to do this. How would they know how to properly worship? Wouldn't they just devolve into idolatry? This clearly isn't the case, but your reasoning seems to suggest that this is what would happen.
But on to the more substantial problem. You said, "Even if there is, the strict monotheistic teaching is clear; whereas in RCC the emphasis on Mary and all makes things much more unclear.""
But you're trying to have it both ways. First you criticize it for how it looks-- saying its too ambiguous. But when we respond about what Catholic doctrine is, you brush it to the side because you think that singing to the statue looks too much like worship. But when I object that this doesn't show worship, you go and say that the doctrine is ambiguous.
Well, the doctrine isn't ambiguous. Check the catechism. Worship goes to God alone. The strict monotheism is clear.
"As Mohammad thought what the Christians beleived -- Surah 5:116 -- that the Father, the Son, and the Mother are the Trinity. The whole RCC/EO history was a bad testimony and a bad witness to the Muslims."
"That is the bottom line, you are using an OT paradigm to justify false practices for the NT era, when there are clear indications that that is wrong. John 4:21-23; Hebrews chapters 8, 9, 10, 11, 12; Galatians 4:26; Romans 2:28-29; I Peter 2:4-10 (all saints, believers are priests)."
Ken, stay on topic. I'm not justifying an Old Testament priesthood. I'm defending the idea that use of statues in worship is not forbidden, or intrinsically immoral. Those are the two propositions we need to deal with. I've shown ample reason that the use of statue
Ken, stay on topic. I'm not justifying an Old Testament priesthood. I'm defending the idea that use of statues in worship is not forbidden, or intrinsically immoral. Those are the two propositions we need to deal with. I've shown ample reason that the use of statues in worship is neither forbidden nor necessarily immoral.
"I think that is a good principle and indicates Protestantism is closer to the NT model than RCC, with its emphasis on the place and physical external things, rituals, worship, statues, icons, prayers to Mary and the saints, mass and trans. and priests."
I think it's an indication that Protestants are closet gnostics, despite the fact of our incarnational faith. The rhetoric can go in all directions.
"I believe the God of the Bible was grieved at that statue being carried and paraded down the isle and He judged it right in front of their eyes."
But you haven't backed up your belief with solid Scripture. To be proven are one of two propositions. "All usage of statues in the context of worship is immoral." Or, "all usage of statues in the context of worship is forbidden." If you could prove either of these to be true it would follow rather trivially that God would not like what happened. However, I've given reasons why we ought not to take those propositions to be true, with examples from the Scriptures. Since it's just your belief, it doesn't particularly faze me.
It's clear that you can't use the first commandment to condemn the Catholic practice. For if the first commandment wasn't sufficient to condemn the cherubim atop the Ark, and the people worshiping before the Ark, it wouldn't be sufficient to condemn Catholics. You so subtly change the topic when you argue from the lack of usage of statues in the New Testament, for much of the reason why we give Old Testament examples is precisely because you use the first commandment-- which is an Old Testament law-- against us. And so we show that your interpretation of it is wrong. And once that happens, you accuse us of going back to an Old Testament context for worship. Well, we have to do that to disprove your false interpretation of the first commandment.
And so now that you've abandoned using the first commandment, your argument seems to be, at best, an argument from silence in the NT. And even if it's a successful argument, I doubt it's strong enough to say that God condemns the practice. For the first reason, that even though the Old Testament worship is superseded, if the usage of statues was not immoral in the Old Testament, and what is moral or immoral does not change, then it wouldn't be immoral now either. And if there's no reason to say that it's immoral now, and there's no explicit NT condemnation of it, then it would certainly be overreaching the strictures of sola scriptura to condemn Christians and narrow their legitimate Christian freedom for a mere opinion.
So one quick question.
1. Are you
1. Are you willing to agree with me that the first commandment is not sufficient basis for condemning the Catholic practice with regard to statues?
If you agree with me, then we've come a long way in dialogue. If you disagree with me, then I refer you back to my arguments above regarding the Ark and the cherubim. You may think this is tangential, but I think it's essential to show that the first commandment doesn't condemn the Catholic practice.
Of course, I think the Protestant case if very shaky if they admit this much.
One last apologetics point (detached from this discussion). Protestants like yourself hold both that 1. there is nothing like the OT rites anymore, and 2. that the Eucharist is purely symbolic. On my blog I dealt with this question. I think it is a pure contradiction to hold both of these to be true at once. The reason why Old Testament rites were abolished was because they had to be endlessly repeated, didn't have any real power to forgive sin. The Protestant view of the Eucharist must agree in these essential ways, for Jesus commands that we repeat His example. But on the symbolic view of the Eucharist, it has no essential connection to the sacrifice on Calvary. For this reason, Protestants deny that it truly forgives sins. The symbolic view of the Eucharist is more or less like saying that Jesus established a quasi-Old Testament rite for Christians. But then Protestant Christians holding to the symbolic view must hold both that, "Jesus abolished all Old Testament rites and did not establish any like them in the New Testament," but that, "Jesus established the Eucharist," which is just like Old Testament rites. Hence, the contradiction. I think a similar argument can be used against people who believe that baptism is symbolic and not sacramental. I'd love to hear what you think of this apologetics idea of mine.
God bless.
-Rob
As Mohammad thought what the Christians beleived -- Surah 5:116 -- that the Father, the Son, and the Mother are the Trinity. The whole RCC/EO history was a bad testimony and a bad witness to the Muslims.
Did not Muslims also think that Christians worship three Gods? If so, does this mean that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is dangerous because Muslims get the wrong impression that Christians believe there are three gods?
Mohammad should have just asked if indeed Christians believed that the Father, Son and Mary constituted the Holy Trinity. His erroneous notions would have been corrected if he would have done just so.
Hi BJ,
I am hungry for something a bit more scholarly. Does anyone - Protestant or Catholic - have any suggestions? I would like to see solid exegetical work, paying attention to context, language, linguistics, and history. The things I am most interested in are: Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, and the Eucharist.
I made a new post for ya. This is good for general reference purposes, too. Thanks for asking!:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...y-works-
on.html
Hi Ken, you said: "As Mohammad thought what the Christians beleived -- Surah 5:116 -- that the Father, the Son, and the Mother are the Trinity. The whole RCC/EO history was a bad testimony and a bad witness to the Muslims."
Is there any evidence that he got this erroneous notion from studying RCC/EO writings or is it possible he merely got it from overhearing some gossip in some wandering caravan one day or while dining in some tent watching some dancing girls or the like and drew up his own erroneous conclusions like he did about Jesus and Moses and a whole slew of other things. Heck, from what little I have read about the Mormon bible suggests that it has probably got more truth in it than the Koran and the added books of the Mormon Bible are just bad fiction. I am not even 100% sure that Mohammed even existed.
So why would you assume that some guy named Mohammed learnt such nonsence from actually studying or reading anything Catholic or Eastern Orthodox? Did he list what he supposedly looked at in the Koran as proof texts for his conclusions?
One thing I did glean from what you wrote is a tacit admission that the Roman Catholic Church did at least exist in the 600's. That is more than many Protestants are willing to concede.
Thanks!
So why would you assume that some guy named Mohammed learnt such nonsence from actually studying or reading anything Catholic or Eastern Orthodox? Did he list what he supposedly looked at in the Koran as proof texts for his conclusions?
One thing I did glean from what you wrote is a tacit admission that the Roman Catholic Church did at least exist in the 600's. That is more than many Protestants are willing to concede.
Thanks Paul -- good discussion.
I agree with you that Muhammad, the founder of Islam did not read anything official. He was a political man, and a warrior. Muslims claim he was illiterate. Seems true that he was not very educated; but he was smart as a leader/politics/war strategies/motivating his fighters, etc.
But he did go on caravan trips to Syria, passing though what is today called N. Arabia, Jordan, Palestine, and Israel. He probably saw the Mary statues and the practices of the nominal, heretical and orthodox Christians.
Many Muslims, still to this day; think that the Trinity is the Father, the Mother, and the Son!
It is true that they do not take the time to read the official documents and we Protestants get accused of the same thing, just by saying "son of God". The phrase to a Muslim's ear, "The Son of God" automatically means -- "God lusted after Mary and got married to her and had sex and had a child".
Those that do take the time to study official doctrine, both RCC and Protestant material on the Trinity, etc. still mostly continue to mock and reject and make fun of that doctrine.
But it is not helped when they see pictures and statues of Mary and the late John Paul 2 bowing down to a big statue of Mary and saying prayers to it; and also Benedict XVI holding hands up in worship to a big statue of Mary. If the two big leaders do that; imaging how many millions of RCCs and EOs and Monophysites (Copts in Egypt and others in Syria, etc. ) and other who do this kind of thing all over the world. It is a bad testimony.
Further, there was a icon/stature of Mary and Jesus in the Kaaba, one of the 360 idols that Muhammad got rid of.
Hi Ken, You said, "He probably saw the Mary statues and the practices of the nominal, heretical and orthodox Christians."
So according to the Church that existed at that time, which cateogry did the Christian folks who honored Mary and the saints fall under?
You said, "Those [Muslims] that do take the time to study official doctrine, both RCC and Protestant material on the Trinity, etc. still mostly continue to mock and reject and make fun of that doctrine." I guess when one is busy decapitating prisoners and little girls going to school, killing Catholic priests and Protestant ministers in Iraq and other countries and burning Christian churches, that probably doesn't leave much time for them to study Christianity. (N.B: I am engaging in a bit of hyperbole here) I am aware of the work that Father Zakarias, a Coptic priest, does in the Middle East and when Muslims actually debate him and try to refute our shared Christian faith, he invariably makes them look foolish. (BTW: Professor White does a pretty good job here in that respect, too, for that matter.)
You said, "But it is not helped when they see pictures and statues of Mary and the late John Paul 2 bowing down to a big statue of Mary and saying prayers to it; and also Benedict XVI holding hands up in worship to a big statue of Mary." I say it is not helped when people continue to perpetrate the myth that Catholics worship Mary. Also, I would suggest that it is a bad testimony when a group of people engage in terrorism, deny fundamental freedoms and prostelytize a religion that promotes the killing of others (jihad) as a sacramental means to earn one's way into heaven. I kinda' doubt that the actions of John Paul II or Benedict XVI of honoring Mary have any bearing on their actions one way or another. I would suggest, however, that Benedict's tireless work to enable Christians to worship in countries where the faith you and I both love is banned and succeeding should be recognized.
As far as statues or icons of Mary and Jesus being found in the Kaaba, I do not know what that would have to do with anything. Were they being worshipped there, were they war booty (icons back then were gold and gem encrusted), or was the Kaaba an Arabic museum of some sort? Further, I would hope that we do not define our beliefs based on whether a bunch of pagans are offended or not. That is political correctness carried out to an extreme and a practice I will never ascribe to.
Paul,
Hi Ben, thanks for the examples from scripture and the ECF's and in saying better what I was trying to say!
I don’t think anything I said was in any way “better,” but do hope it was complementary to your excellent flag analogy! And ya know I couldn't remain “idol” and not say anything on this important topic!
Grubb,
I've stated multiple times that my big concern with praying to heavenly saints and honoring Mary as RCs do is it can lead them to worship the created beings more than the Creator.
But the fact is, in Catholicism, this just simply doesn’t happen! I myself have certainly never met a single Catholic who failed to understand the proper distinction between Christ and his blessed mother, between the Supreme Being, and His creatures. But are there some Catholics who seem to show more affection to Mary than to Christ? Undoubtedly there are. But even if they do, so what? There is certainly nothing wrong or unnatural about it. Have you ever considered how much time and affection you devote to your wife and kids as compared to the Lord?
In any event, such affection is very far removed from diving “worship” or from causing one to sin. Let me quickly illustrate what I mean by an example from Padre Pio.
“A spiritual daughter, one day, expressed herself in the following manner: ‘Father, I fear lest I love you more than Jesus.’ Father Pio did not reply, and after she had finished her confession he absolved her. After a few days, this penitent came to him in the sacristy to kiss his hand in the same was as all the others. The Father in a tone of command told her to go into the village and say an impossible thing to a certain person. ‘Father, I would never do such a thing.’ Father Pio insisted: ‘I command you, do it under obedience.’ The poor penitent was astonished at what he requested and did not comply. When the Father saw that she was firmly convinced that what was requested was wrong, he said: ‘You see now, you don love Jesus more that me. Don’t you see that when I order a thing obviously contrary to the will of God that you do not obey? Are you convinced now?
Padre Pio, the Stigmatist, Rev. Charles Mortimer Carty, Spiritual Maxims of Padre Pio, ch. IX, p. 240. ISBN 0895553554
http://books.google.com/books?id...AJ&
dq=padre+pio
Ken and Grubb,
This is from Martin Luther’s Personal Prayer Book of 1522 (ellipses in the original). I’d like to hear your comments.
THE HAIL MARY {29}
Take note of this: no one should put his trust or confidence in the Mother of God or in her merits, for such trust is worthy of God alone and is the lofty service due only to him. Rather praise and thank God through Mary and the grace given her. Laud and love her simply as the one who, without merit, obtained such blessings from God, sheerly out of his mercy, as she herself testifies in the Magnificat [Luke 1:46-55].
It is very much the same when I am moved by a view of the heavens, the sun, and all creation to exalt him who created everything, bringing all this into my prayer and praise, saying: O God, Author of such a beautiful and perfect creation, grant to me.... Similarly, our prayer should include the Mother of God as we say: O God, what a noble person you have created in her! May she be blessed! And so on. And you who honored her so highly, grant also to me....
Let not our hearts cleave to her, but through her penetrate to Christ and to God himself. Thus what the Hail Mary says is that all glory should be given to God, using these words: ‘Hail, Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with thee [Luke 1:28]; blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus Christ. Amen.’
You see that these words are not concerned with prayer but purely with giving praise and honor. Similarly there is no petition in the first words of the Lord's Prayer but rather praise and glorification that God is our Father and that he is in heaven. Therefore we should make the Hail Mary neither a prayer nor an invocation because it is improper to interpret the words beyond what they mean in themselves and beyond the meaning given them by the Holy Spirit.
But there are two things we can do. First, we can use the Hail Mary as a meditation in which we recite what grace God has given her. Second, we should add a wish that everyone may know and respect her [as one blessed by God].
In the first place, she is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin-something exceedingly great. For God's grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. In the second place, God is with her, meaning that all she did or left undone is divine and the action of God in her. Moreover, God guarded and protected her from all that might be hurtful to her.
In the third place, she is blessed above all other women, not only because she gave birth without labor, pain, and injury to herself, not as Eve and all other women, but because by the Holy Spirit and without sin, she became fertile, conceived, and gave birth in a way granted to no other woman.
In the fourth place, her giving birth is blessed in that it was spared the curse upon all children of Eve who are conceived in sin [Ps. 51:5] and born to deserve death and damnation. Only the fruit of her body is blesse
Only the fruit of her body is blessed, and through this birth we are all blessed.
Furthermore, a prayer or wish is to be added-our prayer for all who speak evil against this Fruit and the Mother. But who is it that speaks evil of this Fruit and the Mother? Any who persecute and speak evil against his work, the gospel, and the Christian faith, as Jews and papists are now doing.
The conclusion of this is that in the present no one speaks evil of this Mother and her Fruit as much as those who bless her with many rosaries and constantly mouth the Hail Mary. These, more than any others, speak evil against Christ's word and faith in the worst way.
Therefore, notice that this Mother and her Fruit are blessed in a twofold way-bodily and spiritually. Bodily with lips and the words of the Hail Mary; such persons blaspheme and speak evil of her most dangerously. And spiritually [one blesses her] in one's heart by praise and benediction for her child, Christ-for all his words, deeds, and sufferings. And no one does this except he who has the true Christian faith because without such faith no heart is good but is by nature stuffed full of evil speech and blasphemy against God and all his saints. For that reason he who has no faith is advised to refrain from saying the Hail Mary and all other prayers because to such a person the words apply: Let his prayer be sin [Ps. 109:7].
Editor’s note 29, p. 39 reads: “Luther had wanted to add the Hail Mary to his Short Form of the Ten Commandments, the Creed, and the Lord's Prayer of 1520. Since the old prayer book had given such a prominent place to the Hail Mary, Luther could not fail to mention it in his. He chose to warn against a false veneration of the Virgin by presenting an evangelical interpretation, as he did in his commentary on the Magnificat of 1525. LW 21, 297-358.”
Luther’s Works, American Edition, Devotional Writings II, Gustav K. Wiencke, ed., 1968, Fortress Press, Philadelphia, vol. 43, pp. 39-41. ISBN 0800603435
http://books.google.com/books?hl...ithout%20sin%
22
Hey folks, check out these spectacular pics.
Christ the Redeemer in Rio.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/205061...Cristo-
Redentor
And now it's back to the sack for me.
So according to the Church that existed at that time, which category did the Christian folks who honored Mary and the saints fall under?
It was a mixture and mish-mash of all three; since all three had icons and statues and gave the appearance of worshiping Mary. Same for all the modern Mary-hype stuff -- Mary stains on highway bypasses and in toast, they would be a mixture of orthodoxy along with goofy practices, etc.
From what I understand, the Coptic priest did indeed to a great job of explaining the Deity of Christ and the Trinity to Muslims; but they were going to kill him; so he now does his show from somewhere in the USA - if that is the same person I am thinking of. Yes, that is a good example. Some of my friends (who are former Muslims) really have appreciated his courageous work.
I guess when one is busy decapitating prisoners and little girls going to school, killing Catholic priests and Protestant ministers in Iraq and other countries and burning Christian churches, that probably doesn't leave much time for them to study Christianity.
Yes, it is sad and grievous that they attack Catholic nuns and do those things you describe. God will take vengeance, His justice, on those evil doers.
Yes, that is the nature of real, doctrinal, consistent, full blown Islam; the Salafi and Wahabbi Islam (Saudi Arabia, Taliban Afghanishtan, Shiite Iran (except 60-80% of the people of Iran don't follow it; mostly the government, military, and mullahs and their supporters.) But most Muslims do not follow Islam all the way consistently in Jihad and applications of everything in today's world.
(N.B: I am engaging in a bit of hyperbole here)
I agree.
I am aware of the work that Father Zakarias, a Coptic priest, does in the Middle East and when Muslims actually debate him and try to refute our shared Christian faith, he invariably makes them look foolish. (BTW: Professor White does a pretty good job here in that respect, too, for that matter.)
Yes, both are very good.
I say it is not helped when people continue to perpetrate the myth that Catholics worship Mary.
Why not get rid of all prayers and statues and icons in worship contexts; (pictures are OK in books in order to teach the history and bible stories) and teach on her godliness and the virgin birth of Christ; and make all your teaching Christ-centered and Biblical? Just keep to the text of Scripture and defend the virgin birth and repent of the additional stuff. (IC, Sinlesses, PVM, mediatrix, prayers to her; Bodily Assumption) -- be a better testimony of Biblical truth and get rid of those stumbling blocks? That would be a much bigger step in true unity around the truth according to John 17:17-23 and Ephesians 4:1-16. It would not deal with other issues of ultimate authority and Sola Fide, but it would be a great step.
Also, I would suggest that it is a bad testimony when a group of people engage in terrorism,
Of course, Islam is a false religion and a false system; they have no testimony at all.
deny fundamental freedoms and prostelytize a religion that promotes the killing of others (jihad) as a sacramental means to earn one's way into heaven.
yes, Islam is a false religion and has resulted in a lot of bad and evil actions.
I kinda' doubt that the actions of John Paul II or Benedict XVI of honoring Mary have any bearing on their actions one way or another.
But doing the right thing (getting rid of all that hyperdulia and dulia and just teach the Scriptures) would enhance truth in other Muslims (many who never do the violent-evils) minds as to what the Trinity is. The average Muslim would be more inclined to try to understand it without the stumbling blocks of what appears to be idolatry. Since Christians have the truth; we are the ones obligated to provide a good witness; (Acts 1:8.). They, in a false system; cannot.
I would suggest, however, that Benedict's tireless work to enable Christians to worship in countries where the faith you and I both love is banned and succeeding should be recognized.
on that he is good; and his famous speech that caused controversy was good (where he referenced the Byzantine Emperor's words when the Ottoman Turks were attacking and attempting to conquer Constantinople; which eventually they did in 1453).
Again, since we have the truth (John 17:17; Hebrews 4:12; John 14:6; it is we, the Christians who are obligated to provide the good testimony and witness; unbelievers cannot by nature provide a good witness; especially a system as diabolical as Islam, as the French philosopher, Ernest Renan,( 1823-1892) said, "Islam is the heaviest chains that humanity ever bore.”
Ken, what do you think of my last post?
-Rob
Ken, stay on topic. I'm not justifying an Old Testament priesthood. . . .
Rob of NY :
The priesthood issue was only one issue in the whole mix of this paragraph and verses, since Hebrews 7-10, 11, 12 also has things about the land, temple, arc of the covenant. John 4:21-24 and other passages show a change from the external isms of the OT to the internal emphasis of the Spirit and faith in the New Covenant.
Again,
The New covenant and the church - local gatherings of believers in all nations- is the NT model for the context of worship. There is no thing like the OT temple/sacrifices/priests/altar/arc of coveneant/cherubim/gold, etc. for the NT church. God did away with all that those things. That is the bottom line, you are using an OT paradigm to justify false practices for the NT era, when there are clear indications that that is wrong. John 4:21-23; Hebrews chapters 8, 9, 10, 11, 12; Galatians 4:26; Romans 2:28-29; I Peter 2:4-10 (all saints, believers are priests).
No statues in the new covenant worship context; violation not only of commandment 1, but of commandment 2 also. (if following the arragement of
1. no other gods (includes invisible false gods)
2. no idols or graven images in worship
more later
Protestants like yourself hold both that 1. there is nothing like the OT rites anymore, and 2. that the Eucharist is purely symbolic.
The Eucharist communicates the real spiritual presence of Jesus to those who are trusting Him and take the Lord's supper in a worthy manner; ie, examination and worship. Real presence is His spiritual presence and communion (fellowship) is experienced.
I think it is a pure contradiction to hold both of these to be true at once.
No, I don't see how. as there is a communication of spiritual presence to believers who examine themselves and confess their sins and are trusting and looking back to the "once for all sacrifice".
The reason why Old Testament rites were abolished was because they had to be endlessly repeated, didn't have any real power to forgive sin.
But they were a foreshadowing prophecy of the final sacrifice, the lamb of God sacrificed once for all. The cross does have real power to forgive, by grace and faith alone, trusting in the message of that historical event, seeing my sin putting Jesus on the cross, repenting, and trusting Him to save me.
The Protestant view of the Eucharist must agree in these essential ways, for Jesus commands that we repeat His example.
We are repeating the eating of the body and drinking of His blood, symbols of trust and faith in His once for all sacrifice; but we are not repeating the sacrifice itself. Therefore, your analogy fails.
But on the symbolic view of the Eucharist, it has no essential connection to the sacrifice on Calvary.
"Do this [eat and drink], in remembrance of Me." If by "essential" you mean "ontologically", "in essence", well, you don't either, transubstantiation is just a theory, a imaginary thing in the mind of the RCC thinkers from Radbertus (8th Century) to Aquinas. No reality in substance or material behind it at all.
For this reason, Protestants deny that it truly forgives sins.
Ontologically, or ex opere operato, no; but by faith, looking back at the meaning of the cross and confessing our sins, we have forgivenss ( I John 1:5-9) and a present mediator/advocate ( I John 2:1-2; Romans 8:31-34, I Tim. 2:5-6)
The symbolic view of the Eucharist is more or less like saying that Jesus established a quasi-Old Testament rite for Christians.
not at all; I don't follow your logic. we look back to the reality of the cross in history.
But then Protestant Christians holding to the symbolic view must hold both that, "Jesus abolished all Old Testament rites and did not establish any like them in the New Testament," but that, "Jesus established the Eucharist," which is just like Old Testament rites. Hence, the contradiction. I think a similar argument can be used against people who believe that baptism is symbolic and not sacramental. I'd love to hear what you think of this apologetics idea of mine.
Good try, from your RCC paradigm.
Both baptism and Eucharist are looking back by faith toward the gospel, the cross, burial and resurrection of Christ. I Cor. 15:1-9; Romans 6:1-7; John 6, I Cor. 11, etc.
"No statues in the new covenant worship context; violation not only of commandment 1, but of commandment 2 also. (if following the arragement of
1. no other gods (includes invisible false gods)
2. no idols or graven images in worship"
How can you say that having statues in the context of worship violates the commandment, when I've shown worship of the Lord, with the context of the Ark, not only in the tabernacle or the Holy of Holies, but also before the people? That seems to be false.
Right now what I want to focus on is your usage of the ten commandments to argue against Catholic practice. It seems that the first two commandments cannot be construed as condemning the use of statues in the context of worship, and so it seems unjustified to use them to condemn Catholic practice.
I understand that you have reasons from the NT to not have statues in the context of worship, but that's still not the ten commandments. Why then do you continue to say that the commandments forbid this?
"No statues in the new covenant worship context; violation not only of commandment 1, but of commandment 2 also. (if following the arragement of
1. no other gods (includes invisible false gods)
2. no idols or graven images in worship"
As I mentioned before, Ken, God certqainly did permit graven images to be fashioned. In fact, He commanded it to be done. People are forbiden to bow down and worship them.
I guess that is one reason why God did away with the temple and pilgrimages to Jerusalem. John 4:21-24
I can't agree with your above statement, Ken.
This indicates that God realized He made a mistake and had to change His mind. It implies that He didn't see this abuse coming and had to react to it.
It is obvious that God permitted graven images. He even commanded that they be fashioned. His only reservation was that people not bow down and worship them. It is the worship of the graven images that is forbiden, not the fashioning of them.
Sorry, I was a bit redundant above.
This indicates that God realized He made a mistake and had to change His mind.
I disagree; of course He knows all beforehand and plans it all. He told the Israelites to "look at the Bronze serpent and be healed" (Numbers 21:9), but later, when they were worshiping it, one of the Kings, Hezekiah destroyed it. see 2 Kings 18:4
He obviously knew all that before hand and it does not indicate or imply any change of mind, or weakness on God's part.
It implies that He didn't see this abuse coming and had to react to it.
wrong. see above.
http://
www.answeringcatholicism....rayertomary.jpg
This is at least the appearance of worship to Mary; and since there is no object way to distinguish between the unbiblical distinctions between latrea, dulia, and hyper-dulia in the heart and minds of people; then it is at worst seems like practical worship to Mary.
http://aomin.org/aoblog/index.ph....php?
itemid=384
more examples of unbiblical Marian practice and devotion.
http://aomin.org/aoblog/index.ph....php?
itemid=337
and another
http://aomin.org/aoblog/
index.ph...ery=Mary+statue
and another
Is this a true quote ?? He actually here says, "worship of Mary"
On May 7, 1997, Pope John Paul II dedicated his general audience to "the Virgin Mary" and urged all Christians to accept her as their mother. He noted the words spoken by Jesus on the cross to Mary and John -- "Woman, behold thy son!" and "Behold thy mother!" (John 19:26, 27), and he claimed that in this statement, "It is possible to understand the authentic meaning in the worship of Mary in the ecclesial community. . .which furthermore is based on the will of Christ" (Vatican Information Service, May 7, 1997). He said "the history of Christian piety teaches that Mary is the path that leads to Christ, and that filial devotion to her does not at all diminish intimacy with Jesus, but rather, increases it and leads it to very high levels of perfection." He concluded by asking all Christians "to make room for Mary in their daily lives, acknowledging her providential role in the path of Salvation."
My emphasis added
Ken,
Do you have any comments to my last post?
God bless.
-Rob
Rob NY,
The last 6 posts I have done, point to the bowing down before statues of Mary as violations of the first and second commandments.
The cherubim and arc of covenant are obviously not applicable -- they did not pray or talk to the cherubim. Roman Catholics are actually talking to Mary and praying to her. This is just wrong.
Notice the illustration of the bronze serpent also. see above.
The last 6 posts I have done, point to the bowing down before statues of Mary as violations of the first and second commandments.
And so salvation depends on keeping the commandments?
I'm sorry for butting in, but where can I find the most thorough and forceful refutations of non-Catholic Eastern Christianity? Those people (met online) bring me great distress, for they are so close and yet so bullishly far. More than a bit ethnocentric, I reckon some are. As if Christ was Greek. Probably a far greater threat to the faithful than Protestantism, because they seem so similar.
I doubt that they are anywhere near the "most thorough and forceful" treatments, but there is my web page:
Eastern Orthodoxy
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...index-
page.html
And book:
Orthodoxy and Catholicism: A Comparison
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...hodoxy-
and.html
You can purchase the latter for as low as $3.00 as a pdf file:
http://www.lulu.com/content/1139845
Or as part of my 13 books for $15 deal:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/
2...pologetics.html
Note that my main beef is with the anti-Catholic woing of the Orthodox. They are the main reason I wrote about Orthodoxy at all: all the polemical attacks against Catholicism. I have little problem with ecumenical Orthodox and consider them very close to me as a Catholic.
Commenting by HaloScan
