Praying to the dead - should Christians do it?

[Thinkingstuff]

Mary is taking rest ( Rev 14:13) She never learned English!

That's true Mary never learned English but the Galileans spoke languages they probably never learned in other people tongues on Pentecost. Are you suggesting that the Holy Spirit couldn't instantaneously translate a foreign tongue for you to understand?

God can speak to the dead, but nobody prayed to Moses or to Elijah at all.

So what about Lazerus? I'm sure Mary and Martha spoke to him though he had died? And Note Jesus is God true but he is also a man. Therefore in both capacities he spoke with Moses and Elijah. Not really having an issue with it.

Who prayed to them about what subject?

The elders? I have no idea. Do you?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

They were present, were they not? Was Jesus talking to them when they were in heaven? Was He praying to them?

He certainly was communicating with them and prayer is no more than communication and/or a petition. As far as being in Heaven where God is (in this case a "cloud") is heaven. But they were on the MT. as well.

Do we see that these prayers were communicated directly to them and then they are interceeding for us? I don't see that supported in the passage. Remember that there was a lot of figurative language that went on in Revelation that we cannot use as supporting earthly doctrine.

You are right there is figurative language. However, it is clear Elders are presenting prayers of the Saints to God as Heaven is being discribed. I find that curious. Why aren't the saints imaged as bringing their own prayers each with their own bowl? I believe the figurative language is discribing the intersessory prayers of those in Heaven as they bring out petitions before God.

It is a clear picture of them believing the saints in heaven are omnipotent and omnipresent - two attributes that are specifically and only God's attributes

The significant difference is that its not the saints who have these attributes but seems that there is a means by which God provides them the bowls of prayers. And also note Heaven is outside space time So who knows what can be percieved in that state? After all the end the middle and begining are all jumbled in the Book which John experiences the Glory yet to come.

Again what is significant about Catholic prayers to Saints is that it reveals in them the firm belief in the resurrection of those in Christ and the Glory of the Life found in Christ.

We know from scriptures we will recieve crowns. We also know that our glorified bodies is beyond our understanding. And if its anything like Jesus' resurrected body who could suddenly appear out of thin air and move unrestricted between Jerusalem, and Galilee. It may indeed not seem so strange to us. But this view is certainly an affirmation of the resurrection power of Jesus Christ.

 

[DHK]

It seem Moses didn't have to wait and spoke openly to Jesus with Elijah. How is that possible if he's still waiting for the redemption of his body if he where not alive? Also Jesus spoke to Lazerus. He was raised and is alive in Christ. Is Lazerus still waiting on the redemption of his body? If so how is it he walked around if he were waiting on the redepmtion of his body? Now I'm not saying there isn't a redemption of our body but even without it we are still alive in Christ.

1 Thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

You are alive in Christ if you are saved and still living.
Mary, the apostles, and even Moses and Lazarus are all part of the "dead in Christ." All the saved that have died before us are the dead in Christ. The resurrection has not yet taken place.
The tomb of Mary still exists--somewhere. Her remains are out there.
The tombs of all the apostles are still with us. They are all buried to this day.
Wander around the cemeteries. Take a good look at the tomb stones. If those that are buried were saved they are "the dead in Christ." If not they will spend an eternity in hell for they were without Christ.

The dead in Christ shall rise first. That will happen at the resurrection.
Mary will be a part of that resurrection. Her body has not yet been resurrected. You cannot prove something from silence.

 

[Steadfast Fred]

I myself believe in 'soul sleep.'

Now, don't get me wrong. I don't believe the soul is asleep in the grave. I believe it is asleep in Christ in Heaven just as Lazarus was resting in Abram's bosom in Luke 16.

1 Thessalonians 4:14 tells us that those who are asleep in Christ will God bring with Him.

I believe the body itself is dead in the grave, but the soul is asleep in Christ in Heaven. When Christ comes to call the Church unto Himself, He will bring those who are asleep (the souls) with Him to reunite with the bodies that are presently in the grave.

Remember the story in the Kings about the boy that died? The prophet prayed that the boy's soul should return to his body. When the soul returned, the body was alive once again.

When the soul that Christ brings with Him is reunited with the body, the body will be alive once more.

Now, if my belief is correct, that the soul is asleep in Christ in Heaven just as Lazarus was resting in Abram's bosom, then if Mary was saved, her soul is also asleep in Christ in Heaven. If she is asleep, she cannot hear prayers anyway.

 

[mactx]

for me the thing comes down to this.
The ONLY intercessor the Bible speaks of is Christ. He is now THE priest for us.
The only prayer mentioned in the Bible is prayer to God.

No where does it list any one or anything else that is to be prayed to.

Saints who have gone on before are still the creations of the creator. The creator is worthy of our prayer, the creations are not.

 

[BobRyan]

I myself believe in 'soul sleep.'

Now, don't get me wrong. I don't believe the soul is asleep in the grave. I believe it is asleep in Christ in Heaven just as Lazarus was resting in Abram's bosom in Luke 16.

1 Thessalonians 4:14 tells us that those who are asleep in Christ will God bring with Him.

I believe the body itself is dead in the grave, but the soul is asleep in Christ in Heaven. When Christ comes to call the Church unto Himself, He will bring those who are asleep (the souls) with Him to reunite with the bodies that are presently in the grave.

Remember the story in the Kings about the boy that died? The prophet prayed that the boy's soul should return to his body. When the soul returned, the body was alive once again.

When the soul that Christ brings with Him is reunited with the body, the body will be alive once more.

Now, if my belief is correct, that the soul is asleep in Christ in Heaven just as Lazarus was resting in Abram's bosom, then if Mary was saved, her soul is also asleep in Christ in Heaven. If she is asleep, she cannot hear prayers anyway.

I agree with you and if Mary is sleeping the way that Christ said that his friend Lazarus was sleeping in John 11:11 - then as you point out - she is not answering prayers or seated as queen of the universe or co-redemptrix et al -- then no wonder God says in Isaiah not to "see the dead on behalf of the living" Is 8:19.

When we go to the dead for help - and God has said not to - and they are in no position to do anything but continue to "soul sleep" then who is going to show up when we stand there at that tree of knowledge of good and evil - no matter what the Bible says about soul sleep?

Think about that one.

Here is another point - In Matt 22 Jesus said that "the proof" of the future resurrection is this - Moses is standing at the burning bush and God said (at the point that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are dead) - "I AM the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" Christ add "God is NOT the God of the dead". -

So Christ is either arguing for "Life IN Death" or He is arguing that there must be a future resurrection.

which one does Christ actually say it is in Matt 22?

And why is this argument soooo persuasive to the Sadducees in Matt 22:34 (who say there is no spirit and no resurrection).

The only way for that argument to be an argument for resurrection and NOT for "the living dead" - is for the doctrine of soul sleep to be true.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

It seem Moses didn't have to wait and spoke openly to Jesus with Elijah. How is that possible if he's still waiting for the redemption of his body if he where not alive? .

True. But in the book of Jude - Jude quotes from the book "The Assumption of Moses" when he describes the story of Michael and the devil and the body of Moses at the time of the "Assumption of Moses".

If Moses was bodily resurrected and assumed into heaven - then Moses and Elijah and Christ are all free to have that little talk in Matt 17 - on the top of the mountain - because Moses is not stuck in soul sleep.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Thinkingstuff]

1 Thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

You are alive in Christ if you are saved and still living.
Mary, the apostles, and even Moses and Lazarus are all part of the "dead in Christ." All the saved that have died before us are the dead in Christ. The resurrection has not yet taken place.
The tomb of Mary still exists--somewhere. Her remains are out there.
The tombs of all the apostles are still with us. They are all buried to this day.
Wander around the cemeteries. Take a good look at the tomb stones. If those that are buried were saved they are "the dead in Christ." If not they will spend an eternity in hell for they were without Christ.

The dead in Christ shall rise first. That will happen at the resurrection.
Mary will be a part of that resurrection. Her body has not yet been resurrected. You cannot prove something from silence.

I assume you agree with soul sleep as well? How is it then the White Robed army of Martyrs can call out to God for Justice in Heaven if they haven't first been raised? We can go round and round but like I said before. The Catholic belief is an attestation to the firm belief in the resurrection and life ever after in Christ our Lord.

 

[Steadfast Fred]

I assume you agree with soul sleep as well? How is it then the White Robed army of Martyrs can call out to God for Justice in Heaven if they haven't first been raised? We can go round and round but like I said before. The Catholic belief is an attestation to the firm belief in the resurrection and life ever after in Christ our Lord.

That white robed army has been raised. The resurrection takes place in Chapter 4 of Revelation. The army is later.

 

[DHK]

I assume you agree with soul sleep as well? How is it then the White Robed army of Martyrs can call out to God for Justice in Heaven if they haven't first been raised? We can go round and round but like I said before. The Catholic belief is an attestation to the firm belief in the resurrection and life ever after in Christ our Lord.

No I don't believe in soul sleep.
By the time one gets to Revelation 7, the rapture has already taken place.
What John sees, he sees with spiritual eyes. I still take it literally, but even John had not died yet and was miraculously transported into heaven, and allowed to see these things. God allowed him, so that he might bring us this revelation. This is an exception.
There is no evidence for the assumption of Mary, or the resurrection of others. They are the dead in Christ, as the Bible says they are. We are not to pray to them. It is that simple. To do so is idolatry. It is a transgression of the Ten Commandments.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No I don't believe in soul sleep.
By the time one gets to Revelation 7, the rapture has already taken place.
What John sees, he sees with spiritual eyes. I still take it literally, but even John had not died yet and was miraculously transported into heaven, and allowed to see these things. God allowed him, so that he might bring us this revelation. This is an exception.
There is no evidence for the assumption of Mary, or the resurrection of others. They are the dead in Christ, as the Bible says they are. We are not to pray to them. It is that simple. To do so is idolatry. It is a transgression of the Ten Commandments.

So you don't believe in the Assumption of Enoch or Elijah, nor the resurrection from the dead, nor being alive in Christ and the communion of the entire body of Christ? That is a shame. I do believe in those things. And if it happened to Enoch and Elijah it could happen again. If the dead rose and appeared to people in Jerusalem at the death of Jesus Christ, I believe it can happen again. And I don't think Jesus was committing Idolatry when he spoke to Moses who had died on Nebo during the conversation on the Mount of Transfiguration. And I do believe that the Elders did present the prayers of the Saints to God.

You believe making any image after anything created in Heaven above or on the Earth or underneath the earth is idolatry Yet scriptures tell me that God Commanded Moses to make an image of Cherubim which would be an image of some in heaven above. Therefore I can't take your perspective as 1) evidence that scripture doesn't refer to them. nor 2) that speaking to saints is idolatry. After all you were wrong about image unless you want to question the Character of God and suggest he broke his own Law.

 

[DHK]

So

So, the same old straw man arguments that we have heard so many times before. Have you read some of the other threads where I rebuked the poster for using a "could have" defense. That is your argument here. God "could have" sent the Israelites Hershey Bars instead of manna, but he didn't. God "could have" made us in the image of "the Vulcan" (Star Trek) but he didn't. God "could have" sent Jesus to earth in a space ship, but he didn't. The "could have" argument doesn't work with me. It is a silly argument from silence.

you don't believe in the Assumption of Enoch or Elijah,

I believe what the Bible says about them. And if the Bible says they were translated into heaven, then so be it. That doesn't mean it holds true for others. The "could have" argument is null and void.

nor the resurrection from the dead,

A total non sequitor.
The resurrection is still a future event, unless you are speaking of the resurrection of Christ. I believe in both.

nor being alive in Christ

I have already told you that all believers now, living, are "alive in Christ."

and the communion of the entire body of Christ? That is a shame.

No, I don't believe in the RCC interpretation of the above statement. Is it a shame that I don't believe in Catholic theology when years ago I put Catholic theology on one side of the desk and the Bible on the other, and the obvious decision was that the Bible was right and the RCC was wrong. I chose the Bible over the RCC.

I do believe in those things.

I don't understand why people choose to believe in heresy.

And if it happened to Enoch and Elijah it could happen again.

The "Mars Bar" "could have" come from Mars, but I doubt if it did.
The moon "could have" been made from green cheese. Maybe it is.
But "could have" is your silly argument, not mine. I don't argue from ridiculous silence. I debate from facts. The facts are stated in the Word of God. There is nothing in the Word of God about Mary being assumed, just as there is nothing in science about the moon being made of green cheese. The likelihood of either are about the same. The "could have."

If the dead rose and appeared to people in Jerusalem at the death of Jesus Christ, I believe it can happen again.

Another "could have" argument. It "could be" that we will be riding bicycles with our dogs beside us in heaven also. It just "could be." It "could" happen. Anything "could". Maybe, just maybe, our resurrected bodies "could be" like monkeys. Who knows? You can read anything you want into the Bible with your "could have" arguments. Arguments from silence are so much fun aren't they?

And I don't think Jesus was committing Idolatry when he spoke to Moses who had died on Nebo during the conversation on the Mount of Transfiguration.

Who said he was?

And I do believe that the Elders did present the prayers of the Saints to God.

And so? What is your point? That passage has already been explained.

You believe making any image after anything created in Heaven above or on the Earth or underneath the earth is idolatry Yet scriptures tell me that God Commanded Moses to make an image of Cherubim which would be an image of some in heaven above.

First, was it an image of God?
Second, was it an image to replace God?
Third, was it an image to be worshiped or prayed to?

Therefore I can't take your perspective as 1) evidence that scripture doesn't refer to them. nor 2) that speaking to saints is idolatry.

The cherubims were never addressed nor spoken to in their image form.
When John bowed down to an angel he was sharply rebuked by that angel.

After all you were wrong about image unless you want to question the Character of God and suggest he broke his own Law.

God did not break his own law; but the RCC certainly did.

 

[BobRyan]

So you don't believe in the Assumption of Enoch or Elijah, nor the resurrection from the dead, nor being alive in Christ and the communion of the entire body of Christ? That is a shame.

1. I believe in that Enoch and Elijah were bodily assumed into heaven (translated) as the Bible says. But the Bible does not say that Mary was assumed into heaven and neither do any first century authors.

If she had been bodily assumed into heaven - someone should have noticed and mentioned it. For example in Hebrews 11 Paul was busy mentioning that Enoch had been taken up by God.

2. I believe in the resurrection of the dead - and so in the book the "Assumption of Moses" you have a good explanation for why the Matt 17 is not a case breaking the Bible command not to consult with the dead in Isaiah 8:19.

3. I believe in being "Alive in Christ" - but in 1Thess 4 the saints who die are called the "dead in Christ" and they "Rise first". So the biblical term for the dead is the "Dead in Christ" according to Paul. I don't know of any text in all of scripture that refers to a saint who has died as the "Alive in Christ".

4. The "communion of the saints" - is a term that refers to praying to the dead. (I don't think the RCC allows you to pray to a living person). There is an interesting Catholic Digest article on that idea.

Goes something like this.

Catholic Digest 12/1994 pg 129
“The Rosary is, unsurprisingly, Not mentioned in the Bible. Legend and history place its beginning in the 13th century long After the Bible was completed. As a Pagan practice, praying on counting beads goes back centuries before Christ…

Buddhists use prayer wheels and prayer beads for the same purpose… Counting prayer beads is common practice in religious cultures”.


Cath Digest 9/1993 pg 129
Question:
“My husband has been transferred to Japan and we have been here in Hiroshima for about two months. On a site seeing tour the Japanese guide brought me to a Buddhist shrine. There were statues of Buddha everywhere. The guide told me they represented different aspects of life and that the people offer food to the Buddhas and ask for Favors. It made me think of Our Catholic praying to the saints and wonder whether they have anything like the Ten Commandments to guide them.

There were fountains at the gate where pious visitors washed their hands before entering the shrine grounds. Could this be the same as our holy water?”

Ans:
“Very probably the physical washing signifies some kind of spiritual cleansing, AS it does with Us! Some Muslims say prayers on rosary-like beads Just as We do, so there is no copyright enforced on prayerful customs among the great world religions. The Pagan Romans prayed, each family to its Own household gods, JUST as we do to our patron saints. In Old Testament times the gentile had local gods for their town or country, and our Christian Saints eventually supplanted Them!

The Hebrews, of Course, had the mission of Wiping Out such heathen worshipwith the worship of the one true God, and while they have always had great respect for spiritual heroes, they Never set up any of their own race as substitutes for the local pagan gods!!
They had no need to make distinctions between praying TO the saints for their intercession with god and total adoration of God as the source of everything, as we must!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

1. I believe in that Enoch and Elijah were bodily assumed into heaven (translated) as the Bible says. But the Bible does not say that Mary was assumed into heaven and neither do any first century authors.

When Catholics speak of Mary's assumption they speak it as being translated to heaven. So the concept is the same. Note in the Catholic view Mary may have either died, was raised from the dead and assumed into heaven. I mention this because considering Moses at the Mt. of Transfiguration someone mentioned the assumption of Moses which the NT writer Jude refers to. The assumption of Moses isn't canon but the part that is inspired Jude refers to Michael fighting over the body of Moses. Though nowhere in canon is this related. But it seems generally accepted by at least Jude. Therefore there is precedent that this kind of thing has happened before and is not unique to the Catholic view regarding Mary. Your major issue is that scriptures do not mention Mary's assumption. However, you ignore an important aspect about the bible. Its primary concern is salvation history. Anything that doesn't pertain to it or it beyond the regional scope of the scriptures isn't mentioned. Japan isn't mentioned in scriptures nor is the continents of North and South America. In both cases it is outside the scope of the bible to discuss these locations. So I believe it is outside the scope of scriptures to record (save for brief mention in Jude) the assumption of Moses or the assumption of Mary. But it is not incongruent with scriptures to believe Mary was assumed into heaven as two prophets before her were translated into heaven as well which were recorded in scriptures. Do you believe people after the writing of the NT were raised from the dead? Brought back to life? If you do why don't you say well it doesn't say it in the bible? Well, because as you and I both know the bible attests to people being raised from the dead on several occasions. Therefore precedent has been set where which one can believe the claim long after the last writing of the NT text that someone had died but God brought them back. Also nowhere in scripture does God say only Enoch and Elijah will be assumed into heaven. So there is no limit on the number of times God can assume someone into heaven. This being the case it is reasonable to belief that Mary could indeed have been assumed into heaven without the requirement of it being written in scripture.

If she had been bodily assumed into heaven - someone should have noticed and mentioned it. For example in Hebrews 11 Paul was busy mentioning that Enoch had been taken up by God.

Well, we don't really know who wrote Hebrews but possibly the book was written before the assumption of Mary in any case what I find more fantastic is that we don't have a tomb for Mary. Nor are there reliquaries for Mary. There are no Marian bones to be found. We have bones for Peter and Paul. We have their tombs located but not for Mary. I believe that is telling.

2. I believe in the resurrection of the dead - and so in the book the "Assumption of Moses" you have a good explanation for why the Matt 17 is not a case breaking the Bible command not to consult with the dead in Isaiah 8:19.

I actually have a copy of the assumption of Moses and I don't see how you are relating it to speaking to Moses who died unless you are saying Michael took Moses' body and Moses was raised back to life. In which case the prohibition in Isaiah 8:19 which doesn't apply to Moses also since the same parameters are met with Mary, don't apply to Mary either.

3. I believe in being "Alive in Christ" - but in 1Thess 4 the saints who die are called the "dead in Christ" and they "Rise first".

Certainly, I believe that as well. However, I don't that just because the "saints who die are raised first" means that they are in stasis. In some sort of non active state. I believe their spirits are with God and are waiting for the resurrection. Which is why the Martyrs before the final resurrection can complain to God.

So the biblical term for the dead is the "Dead in Christ" according to Paul. I don't know of any text in all of scripture that refers to a saint who has died as the "Alive in Christ".

It is clear that Christians in Christ have died but that doesn't mean they aren't alive in Christ. Jesus told the thief "today you will be with me in Paradise". Obviously, one can therefore die yet be alive as long as they are in Christ. Those not in Christ are truly dead as they go for the second death the real death.

4. The "communion of the saints" - is a term that refers to praying to the dead. (I don't think the RCC allows you to pray to a living person). There is an interesting Catholic Digest article on that idea

Prayer is communication, and can be a petition. Prayers to those who have gone to "their reward" are no more than petitions for prayer. But the actual catholic view is that the Kingdom of God (the Church or body of believers) transcends this world and is equally established in the heavenly realm. The Church exist in both places at once therefore those who are in heaven are still in the Church and have not therefore ceased being a member of the Church. Thus we are in communion with the entire church as it is one organism not multiple organisms that exist in heaven and on earth at the same time.

 

[DHK]

. Your major issue is that scriptures do not mention Mary's assumption. However, you ignore an important aspect about the bible. Its primary concern is salvation history. Anything that doesn't pertain to it or it beyond the regional scope of the scriptures isn't mentioned. Japan isn't mentioned in scriptures nor is the continents of North and South America. In both cases it is outside the scope of the bible to discuss these locations. So I believe it is outside the scope of scriptures to record (save for brief mention in Jude) the assumption of Moses or the assumption of Mary. But it is not incongruent with scriptures to believe Mary was assumed into heaven as two prophets before her were translated into heaven as well which were recorded in scriptures. Do you believe people after the writing of the NT were raised from the dead? Brought back to life? If you do why don't you say well it doesn't say it in the bible? Well, because as you and I both know the bible attests to people being raised from the dead on several occasions.

First, Christ is the firstfruits of the resurrection. He is the first to be raised from the dead.
Second, who was raised from the dead after Christ? Aside from a few graves that opened after he rose, as one of the miraculous events that happened along with His resurrection, I know of none. Are you thinking of the bogus claims of Benny Hinn per chance? :smilewinkgrin:
http://www.pfo.org/tbn-dead.htm

When we speak of things outside of the Bible we generally speak of physical things that we can see and touch. You mentioned Japan. I flew over Japan, saw it with my own eyes. I also flew into Japan, stayed in Tokyo, met the people of Japan. I went; I saw; I was eyewitness to the Japanese and their land.
I was not eyewitness to the assumption of Mary.
Nor was God the Holy Spirit.
Nor was anyone in all of history.
There is not a shred of evidence anywhere.

"The assumption of Mary" is outside the physical realm. It is a matter of faith and that puts it in the realm of the metaphysical, the realm of faith. In all matters of faith and doctrine the Bible is our final authority. Perhaps not in geometry or in geography, but in religion, doctrine, those things that are in the realm of the metaphysical such as the assumption of Mary; yes the Bible is our final authority.

Japan and The Assumption are apples and oranges. There is no comparison.
Your "could have" argument is a logical fallacy which is a basic argument from silence.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Is it a shame that I don't believe in Catholic theology when years ago I put Catholic theology on one side of the desk and the Bible on the other, and the obvious decision was that the Bible was right and the RCC was wrong. I chose the Bible over the RCC.
I don't understand why people choose to believe in heresy.

You can read anything you want into the Bible with your "could have" arguments. Arguments from silence are so much fun aren't they?

I wonder who here believes that if Bibles were dropped from an airplane down among a tribe who had never read it, and the Bible was in the tribe's language, that after reading the Bible the tribe would adopt the RCC system and doctrines.

If the Bible is taken as final authority, there is no way anyone could be a Roman Catholic. The only way that can happen is if RC tradition is made equal to or placed above scripture.

However, that does raise an interesting question: Since all the non-Catholic denominations profess belief in the final authority of the Bible, and all of them believe their denomination is closest in its beliefs to the Bible, how would a tribe such as the aforementioned, presented with the beliefs of the different denominations, determine which indeed was closest to the scriptures? That is intriguing to me. Maybe that tribe would itself split into different denominations. Such is human nature.

But I think this is why some are drawn to Roman Catholicism: They want certainty. But it is certainty based on a hierarchy adding to scripture with traditions of men and making these traditions more weighty than or equally weighty with scripture, and telling the flock that this is what must be believed because the hierarchy says so.

As for me, I prefer the belief in the final authority of scripture, even though differences may and will occur. I prefer to be able to think for myself instead of being told what to think and believe in order to belong. And further, since the scriptures are the written record of the apostles' teachings and thus the written source and foundation of the faith, they must be considered the final authority.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I wonder who here believes that if Bibles were dropped from an airplane down among a tribe who had never read it, and the Bible was in the tribe's language, that after reading the Bible the tribe would adopt the RCC system and doctrines.

If the Bible is taken as final authority, there is no way anyone could be a Roman Catholic. The only way that can happen is if RC tradition is made equal to or placed above scripture.

I agree, I doubt they would. On the other hand, I doubt they would ended up being Baptist either. Most likely they would be confused not knowing how it pertained to them and would ask for explaining much like the Ethiopian Eunuch who answered this question:

“Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked. “How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

Its not that the Bible is second place to Tradition. Its that the bible developed out of Tradition and can only be understood in that context. Not one word of the New Testament was written until 20 years after Jesus ascended into heaven and the Apostles began to preach. Therefore the infant Church was built up not by the written word but the oral teachings of the Apostles. Long before the first letter of the New Testament was written Christian Tradition was already well established. And in fact the New Testament came into existence because the Apostles wanted to provide a supplement to their teaching first by Testimony to the Teachings and Events in Jesus life which pertained to the already established Christian faith. Which is why each Gospel has different emphasis because each was written to a different audience and wanted to make specific points regarding the immediate audience concerned. Thus the Gospels aren't proper biographies as one would expect from a modern biography but are arranged in such a manner as to present already established teaching emphasizing the aspects in Jesus life and Ministry which pertained to the theology and faith the Apostles had been teaching. As John says in his Gospel

Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

Thus showing that there were things that were left out because they didn't pertain specifically to the message the Apostles were trying to get across. Even the Letters of the NT were written to specific group of people to deal with specific issues. Therefore to take these writings outside of the context from the already established Christian Tradition established by the time of their writing would be detrimental to understanding the text so much so that even while Peter was still alive people were using Paul's writings to distort the Apostolic teachings (Tradition) thus the faith

just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

So we see these scriptures were not created in a vacuum but in the environment of an already established belief system that was spread by the Testimony of the Apostles and to try to understand the scriptures outside that context is at best misleading at worst leads to ones own destruction.

As for your claim "If the Bible is taken as final authority" I find it odd that the bible does not make that claim for itself if it was intended to be taken that way. Certainly you will refer to 2 Tim 3 which says

14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom[a] you learned it 15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Which I must say where does it say it is the final authority much less the only authority on teaching of the faith? What it does say is that scriptures are able to make you wise for salvation through faith. And that they are useful. Which I wholly agree that it does make you wise for salvation and it is useful instruction. It also can provide the information which helps complete the man by equipping or enabling him for good works. But it doesn't make the claim it is the only authority nor does it make the claim it is the final authority. However, what can be gleaned from that text which is often overlooked is this passage

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures

Expressing two sources which formed Timothy's faith. 1) the direct teachings of those who passed on the faith orally (Traditions) and 2) the sacred writings (Scripture). Thus they work hand in hand to provide the fullness of teaching. So nowhere does scripture make the claim that it is the only authority or even that it alone is sufficient.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

I agree, I doubt they would. On the other hand, I doubt they would ended up being Baptist either. Most likely they would be confused not knowing how it pertained to them and would ask for explaining much like the Ethiopian Eunuch who answered this question:

Its not that the Bible is second place to Tradition. Its that the bible developed out of Tradition and can only be understood in that context. Not one word of the New Testament was written until 20 years after Jesus ascended into heaven and the Apostles began to preach. Therefore the infant Church was built up not by the written word but the oral teachings of the Apostles. Long before the first letter of the New Testament was written Christian Tradition was already well established. And in fact the New Testament came into existence because the Apostles wanted to provide a supplement to their teaching first by Testimony to the Teachings and Events in Jesus life which pertained to the already established Christian faith. Which is why each Gospel has different emphasis because each was written to a different audience and wanted to make specific points regarding the immediate audience concerned. Thus the Gospels aren't proper biographies as one would expect from a modern biography but are arranged in such a manner as to present already established teaching emphasizing the aspects in Jesus life and Ministry which pertained to the theology and faith the Apostles had been teaching. As John says in his Gospel Thus showing that there were things that were left out because they didn't pertain specifically to the message the Apostles were trying to get across. Even the Letters of the NT were written to specific group of people to deal with specific issues. Therefore to take these writings outside of the context from the already established Christian Tradition established by the time of their writing would be detrimental to understanding the text so much so that even while Peter was still alive people were using Paul's writings to distort the Apostolic teachings (Tradition) thus the faith
So we see these scriptures were not created in a vacuum but in the environment of an already established belief system that was spread by the Testimony of the Apostles and to try to understand the scriptures outside that context is at best misleading at worst leads to ones own destruction.

As for your claim "If the Bible is taken as final authority" I find it odd that the bible does not make that claim for itself if it was intended to be taken that way. Certainly you will refer to 2 Tim 3 which says Which I must say where does it say it is the final authority much less the only authority on teaching of the faith? What it does say is that scriptures are able to make you wise for salvation through faith. And that they are useful. Which I wholly agree that it does make you wise for salvation and it is useful instruction. It also can provide the information which helps complete the man by equipping or enabling him for good works. But it doesn't make the claim it is the only authority nor does it make the claim it is the final authority. However, what can be gleaned from that text which is often overlooked is this passage Expressing two sources which formed Timothy's faith. 1) the direct teachings of those who passed on the faith orally (Traditions) and 2) the sacred writings (Scripture). Thus they work hand in hand to provide the fullness of teaching. So nowhere does scripture make the claim that it is the only authority or even that it alone is sufficient.

I understand how the Bible was developed, so you won't get any argument from me on that. Certainly there were oral teachings of the apostles -- "traditions", if you will -- prior to and concomitant to the scriptures. But since we don't know what these oral traditions were, how can we go by them when establishing doctrine? Indeed, we must be content to be assured that the scriptures are a written reflection of these oral traditions that were prior to and current with the scriptures. Thus, the scriptures, being the only record of the apostles' teachings, must be considered the source and foundation of the faith and consequently the final authority for doctrine. Now, traditions which developed after the apostolic age, oral or written, cannot be used to determine or establish doctrine, especially if these traditions contradict the sourcebook of the Christian faith: the Bible and specifically the New Testament, they being the written record of any prior oral tradition. If any such oral tradition did not get recorded in scripture, then it is not possible to establish doctrine from such absence.

As I have said, I highly value the writings of certain fathers, but I do not base my beliefs on what the fathers wrote. I also value historical context, but I do not base doctrine on it. I take both the fathers and historical context into account when reading scripture and trying to understand and determine correct Biblical teaching, but the Bible is the final authority for me. Since scripture is the only written record of the apostles and any oral tradition that existed at the time of the apostles, scripture must be taken as the final authority in establishing and determining doctrine, not some later tradition, not some father, not some religious hierarchy, not some institution claiming ultimate and final authority to determine and establish both acceptable tradition and acceptable Bible interpretation.

No, I cannot (and I believe God does not wish me to) put a hierarchy or institution between Him and me or between Him and His word in the scriptures.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I understand how the Bible was developed, so you won't get any argument from me on that. Certainly there were oral teachings of the apostles -- "traditions", if you will -- prior to and concomitant to the scriptures. But since we don't know what these oral traditions were, how can we go by them when establishing doctrine? Indeed, we must be content to be assured that the scriptures are a written reflection of these oral traditions that were prior to and current with the scriptures. Thus, the scriptures, being the only record of the apostles' teachings, must be considered the source and foundation of the faith and consequently the final authority for doctrine. Now, traditions which developed after the apostolic age, oral or written, cannot be used to determine or establish doctrine, especially if these traditions contradict the sourcebook of the Christian faith: the Bible and specifically the New Testament, they being the written record of any prior oral tradition. If any such oral tradition did not get recorded in scripture, then it is not possible to establish doctrine from such absence.

You make a good point about the absence of Apostles and I might be inclined to agree with you except for two things. When the Apostle taught they made disciples such as Timothy who understood the context in the age which the New Testament and would be able and knowledgeable enough to say "you are mistaking Paul". And these out of these disciples they chose certain leaders like Timothy again to perpetuate the faith faithfully passing on the teachings Jesus gave to the Apostles who in turned faithfully passed it on to the elders of the Churches. To explain my meaning let me refer to Acts

he sent to Ephesus and called the elders of the church to come to him. 18 And when they came to him, he said to them:

“You yourselves know how I lived among you the whole time from the first day that I set foot in Asia, 19 serving the Lord with all humility and with tears and with trials that happened to me through the plots of the Jews; 20 how I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you in public and from house to house, 21 testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance toward God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. 22 And now, behold, I am going to Jerusalem, constrained by[c] the Spirit, not knowing what will happen to me there, 23 except that the Holy Spirit testifies to me in every city that imprisonment and afflictions await me. 24 But I do not account my life of any value nor as precious to myself, if only I may finish my course and the ministry that I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of God. 25 And now, behold, I know that none of you among whom I have gone about proclaiming the kingdom will see my face again. 26 Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all, 27 for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God. 28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God,[d] which he obtained with his own blood.[e] 29 I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. 31 Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish every one with tears. 32 And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified

So entrusting the teaching of the Faith (Traditions) to the elders Paul envisions that the perpetuity of the faith is reliant not on a book as much as Holy Spirit filled men whom he passed on the faith to. And so these men passed on to the next generation all the way to this day and there is a clear record of it. I also want to point out the issue which Paul brings up and I'm certain is on your mind. Which is

I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them.

. Your contention may be that then these wolves and men twisting the faith may have rose up against the Church and over whelmed the faith entrusted by Paul to his followers leaving no real trace of Apostolic Tradition save in its written form. Which would mean that Jesus' promise to Peter and the Apostles when he said

I will build my church, and the gates of hell[c] shall not prevail against it.

would be false. Also it would assume that the Holy Spirit was incapable of keeping the Church in the faith through out its history. Yet, Jesus said

48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you

and again in Acts

And while staying[a] with them he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me; 5 for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now

But the perpetuity of the Church and the Faith is reliant on the Holy Spirit to keep it. Which is my second point with regard to keeping the Apostolic Deposit of Faith.

As I have said, I highly value the writings of certain fathers, but I do not base my beliefs on what the fathers wrote. I also value historical context, but I do not base doctrine on it. I take both the fathers and historical context into account when reading scripture and trying to understand and determine correct Biblical teaching, but the Bible is the final authority for me. Since scripture is the only written record of the apostles and any oral tradition that existed at the time of the apostles, scripture must be taken as the final authority in establishing and determining doctrine, not some later tradition, not some father, not some religious hierarchy, not some institution claiming ultimate and final authority to determine and establish both acceptable tradition and acceptable Bible interpretation.

Did you ever ask yourself what the Fathers agree on and held consistently to? They had their disagreements but they also had their agreements. What were they? What were they consistent about? I believe that is an important question and give evidence to what was generally accepted.

No, I cannot (and I believe God does not wish me to) put a hierarchy or institution between Him and me or between Him and His word in the scriptures

I personally think you are looking at that backwards. I believe he established the Church so that you might have the scriptures and the means to fellowship with God fully. Not to step in between you and him. Though I understand your perspective.

 

[Eliyahu]

Praying to Mary and to the Saints is a Polytheism