David Lamb
Well-Known Member
Never mind what a secular dictionary says. How does the Bible use the word "Mediator?" Does it ever use that word to refer to praying for somebody? No, not once.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Mary’s devotion to Jesus
- Thread starter Cathode
- Start date
Give US this day our daily bread, forgive US our trespasses, lead US not into temptation.
You are asking the Father on behalf of others and yourself in the Lord’s Prayer.
This is mediation, a mediation the Lord enjoined on us to practice. This does not detract from Christ’s unique singular mediation on the Cross for the Redemption of all mankind. This is the One Mediatorship that Christ alone did. That’s what this is referring to, not the absurd idea that no one can be asked to pray for us.
Taken to it’s absurd conclusion, you shouldn’t pray to the Father in The Lord’s Prayer.
So mediator and Intercessor are synonymous.
The context is different however, between the mediation Christ did uniquely for redemption and our subordinate mediation we do for others in our prayer to God for them.
David Lamb
Well-Known Member
True, I am interceding for them but I am not a mediator between them and God. Only Jesus Christ is that, as is stated in the Bible.
Nowhere in the Bible is prayer called mediation.
Only if you equate intercession with mediation.
Not in the Bible.
Nowhere in the Bible are Christians called to be mediators for other Christians.
Anthony Pritchard
Well-Known Member
A synonym is not a definition. That is why it is called a synonym and not a definition. Modern dictionaries often add, subtract, or cloud original meanings over time. Biblical terms must be defined by Scripture itself, not by contemporary synonym lists.
Mediation and intercession are distinct categories in Scripture. Mediation is the exclusive role of Christ, standing between God and man to reconcile the two (1 Tim. 2:5). Intercession is the prayer believers offer for one another within this life. Neither scripture or the apostles never extended intercession to the departed, the apostles never prayed to them, and never taught the practice.
Scripture does not speak of “subordinate mediation.” It speaks of one mediator, and it speaks of believers praying for one another. Those are different roles with different meanings, and they should not be merged.
Mediators are middle men, intercessor, when you pray for others to God.
“formed from the stem of mediare ("to be in the middle") and the root medius ("middle").”
That’s why mediator and Intercessor are the same thing.
When you pray for others, you are in the middle between them and God, you are a mediator. Just common sense.
What we didn’t mediate between God and man was the Redemption of all mankind that Christ alone did.
This is the one meditation being referred too that is uniquely Christ’s alone.
So all your legalism and quibbling with words is absurd in its conclusion.
That’s your quibblings, mediator means to be in the middle, which is intercession.
Intercessor means to be “ between “.
“go-between, intermediary, intermediator, mediator.”
There is no fine acute legal distinction, both words mean the same thing and are used interchangeably to describe each other.
So we are mediators by prayer for others to God, but only Christ was the One mediator for mankind’s redemption.
I worry about people so caught up in legalism, they deny the plain gratifying reading of scripture and end in absurd positions.
Ascetic X
Well-Known Member
@Anthony Pritchard has not mentioned law or legalism. And his explanation of the precise terms used in scripture is not “quibbling with words”.
You place church tradition and dictionaries above the scriptures.
Anthony Pritchard
Well-Known Member
When a man cannot defend his position from Scripture, he accuses others of “legalism” or “quibbling.” But the issue is not legalism. The issue is biblical categories.
Legalism is attempting to gain access to God in any way other than what Scripture prescribes. It is not what you are calling it here.
The Bible uses different words, different functions, and different offices for mediation and intercession. A mediator stands between God and man as the means of access. An intercessor prays to God on behalf of another. Those are not the same role.
Paul makes the distinction explicit: “There is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5). If praying for someone made me a mediator, then Paul’s statement would be false, because millions of Christians pray for one another. But Paul says there is one mediator, not many. That means intercession is not mediation.
Intercession is prayer. Mediation is access.
Christ mediates; believers intercede.
The apostles never prayed to Mary or any departed believer, never asked them for intercession, and never taught the practice. The New Testament directs prayer to the Father, through the Son, by the Spirit, never through any other mediator.
Anthony Pritchard
Well-Known Member
When a man cannot defend his position from Scripture, he accuses others of “legalism” or “quibbling.” But the issue is actually biblical categories.
The Bible uses different words, different functions, and different offices for mediation and intercession. A mediator stands between God and man as the means of access. An intercessor prays to God on behalf of another. Those are not the same role.
Paul makes the distinction explicit: “There is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5). If praying for someone made me a mediator, then Paul’s statement would be false, because millions of Christians pray for one another. But Paul says there is one mediator, not many. That means intercession is not mediation.
Intercession is prayer. Mediation is access.
Christ mediates; believers intercede.
The apostles never prayed to Mary or any departed believer, never asked them for intercession, and never taught the practice. The New Testament directs prayer to the Father, through the Son, by the Spirit, never through any other mediator.
The difference applies in theology.
Here is another example - do we worship men? No. We worship only God. BUT outside of theology "worship" means to hold great respect.
So if we use a non-biblical definition then we certainly should worship our parents (in fact, we are commanded to do so).
μεσίτης (mediator) is arbitrate.
ἔντευξις (intercession) is petition.
You are laundering words as crooks launder money. You take the Greek, translate it into an English word, then look for synonyms for that English word.
It IS satanic to pray to ANYBODY as a mediator except it be Christ.
For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time (1 Timothy 2:5-6).
But I know that this verse is meaningless to you because the leaders of your organization will explain it away. You follow a religious organization and not God.
I know it may bring you spiritual peace, just as Buddhists find their faith spiritually pleasing. And, in a way, good for you. If you reject Christ you might as well seek some type of fulfillment in this life.
I do not believe that the Christian faith excludes Catholics, BTW. But when people get to the point that they are praying to Mary or angels then we can be fairly confident that their god is not God (just as we can know the god of Islam is not God).
Also... these are different words in the Bible.
@Cathode is taking a Greek word, translating it into English, then trying to find synonyms for the English word. Obviously languages do not work that way.
Languages do not map into each other 1 to 1.
It doesnt work that way in English either (it is not just pick a word from a thesaurus. You have to do a bit more).
1. I adore cheesecake (I am "very fond of" cheesecake). Adore (Merriam Websters) means "to be very fond of".
2. A synonym for "adore" is "worship" (per Merriam Webster). Using @Cathode 's process I "worship" cheesecake.
3. Merriam Webster defines "worship" as -
1:to honor or show reverence for as a divine being or supernatural power
2: to regard with great or extravagant respect, honor, or devotion
So even sticking with one dictionary (Merriam Webster) @Cathode 's method is folly. Although "worship" is a synonym for "adore" I do not worship cheesecake.
What does middle mean, to be between.
What does between mean, to be in the middle.
You guys are incredible.
And you don’t want anyone to point out the absurd legalist distinctions that exist only in your heads.
Yes Christ is the only one mediator for the redemption of mankind.
But Christ is not the only mediator when it comes to prayer to God for others.
When you pray to God for someone, you are by definition a mediator in the middle.
Christs mediatorship opened access to The Father for redemption.
Our mediatorship in prayer means we have access to the Father to pray the Our Father addressing The Father directly.
Intercession is pointless without access.
Christ’s mediation is of a higher order for redemption.
Our mediation is on behalf of those who ask our prayers to God.
Anthony Pritchard
Well-Known Member
Repeating English definitions of “middle” and “between” does not establish doctrine. Biblical doctrine is not built from English etymology. It is built from Scripture. And Scripture uses different words, different functions, and different offices for mediation and intercession.
Legalism is attempting to gain access to God in any way other than what Scripture prescribes. It is not what you are calling it here.
A mediator stands between God and man as the means of access. An intercessor prays to God on behalf of another. Those are not the same role.
Paul makes the distinction explicit: “There is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5). If praying for someone made me a mediator, then Paul’s statement would be false, because millions of Christians pray for one another. But Paul says there is one mediator, not many. That means intercession is not mediation.
Intercession is prayer. Mediation is access.
Christ mediates; believers intercede.
The apostles never prayed to Mary or any departed believer, never asked them for intercession, and never taught the practice. The New Testament directs prayer to the Father, through the Son, by the Spirit, never through any other mediator.
@Ascetic X was correct in saying “You place church tradition and dictionaries above the scriptures.”
Anthony Pritchard
Well-Known Member
@Ascetic X put it plainly: “You place church tradition and dictionaries above the scriptures.” That is exactly the issue here, Cathode. Strongs is a concordance, not a doctrinal authority. It gives glosses, not theological categories. Biblical doctrine is not built from English synonyms or Strongs glosses. It is built from Scripture itself.
The Bible uses different words, different functions, and different offices for mediation and intercession -JonC. A mediator stands between God and man as the means of access. An intercessor prays to God on behalf of another. Those are not the same role.
Paul makes the distinction explicit: “There is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5). If praying for someone made me a mediator, then Paul’s statement would be false, because millions of Christians pray for one another. But Paul says there is one mediator, not many. That means intercession is not mediation.
Intercession is prayer. Mediation is access.
Christ mediates; believers intercede.
The apostles never prayed to Mary or any departed believer, never asked them for intercession, and never taught the practice. The New Testament directs prayer to the Father, through the Son, by the Spirit, never through any other mediator.
I would love you guys on my legal team if I was to get into trouble with the law, but in this situation you can’t change facts of the case.
Intercessors are mediators and mediators are intercessors.
Christs one mediation and our mediation are different, but we are mediators.
Intercessors are mediators and mediators are intercessors.
Christs one mediation and our mediation are different, but we are mediators.
GentleGospeller
Active Member
No, Roman Catholicism has the serious err, and is called "antichrist", vicarius christi, for it.
1Jn_2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
1Jn_2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
1Jn_4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
2Jn_1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
They deny the sinful (fallen) flesh nature in Jesus' humanity, as per Rom. 8:3:
Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Rom. 8:3; Gal. 4:4; Heb. 2:16-17; (not like angelic nature, unfallen celestial flesh; Jud. 1:7; 1 Cor. 15:39-40), but 2 Cor. 5:21.
This only refers to the human flesh nature of Jesus, not His spirit / mind / heart, for "flesh" and "spirit" are not the same thing, as per Jhn. 3.
Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Consider carefully the two things:
Luk_1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Gal_4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
All mankind since the fall of Adam, have come in the likeness of sinful (fallen) flesh:
Rom_1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
David's flesh and Jesus' flesh were both sinful (fallen) flesh:
Psa 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
See this chart:
Pages 88-89 - Godhead - The Eternal Heavenly Trio : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
or here - Flesh And Spirit of Jesus Christ Chart : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
Having sinful flesh is not to be a sinner. To sin (1 Jhn. 3:4; Rom. 7:7,14; Jam. 2:8-13) is to be a sinner. Sin is not simply existing / being in sinful (fallen) flesh.
As stated before, Jesus was without sin (no question), but Jesus' human nature, his human flesh, could not be unfallen (like the angelic hosts in their unfallen celestial flesh) and still be subject to death, but came "in the likeness of sinful (fallen) flesh" (Rom. 8:3).
Jesus redeemed fallen mankind, by being victorious over the fallen nature. He had sinful (fallen) flesh and chose not to sin, even unto death, the death of the Cross.
Joh_16:33 These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.
Rev_3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
The words are "even as" (G5613). Jesus is the "example" (1 Pet. 2:21) not just the "propitiation" for mankind. Jesus, demonstrating in the sinful (fallen) flesh that it is possible to be an overcomer, as He was, by the Holy Ghost. Jesus was born of the Holy Ghost in sinful (fallen) flesh, and a Christian is also born of the Holy Ghost, by being born again from above, and yet lives in the same sinful (fallen) flesh, and so can have the same victory in the here and now as Jesus did then, and one does not need to wait until the flesh is changed at the second coming. The latter reasoning grants no victory in the here and now, and places sin as victorious until Jesus returns, but that is not what Jesus promised!
Yes, Jesus took on "human nature", but there are two kinds of such as mentioned in scripture that take place before translation / glorification:
1. the sinless (unfallen) flesh of Adam the first
2. the sinful (fallen) flesh of Adam the first after he had sinned
So, which option of "human nature" does the Bible say Jesus took?
Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Rom 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
1Pe_4:1 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;
1Pe_3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
They follow the Lamb withersoever He goeth (Rev. 14:4).
You say, "He is God and God does not have a sinful nature.", yet He is also man (human, mankind), and in that second nature taken upon Himself, He took sinful (fallen) flesh:
1Ti_3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
Rom_9:5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
Php 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Php 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Php 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
Php 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Heb_2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
Col_1:22 In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:
So, why focus only on the God part and not the second part, the sinful (fallen) flesh human nature part?
Another reason that Roman Catholicism needs to reject this, is because of their "Transubstantiation" doctrine, and they do not want to believe they eat sinful (fallen) flesh.
Anthony Pritchard
Well-Known Member
Ascetic X put it plainly: “You place church tradition and dictionaries above the scriptures.” And as JonC noted, “The Bible uses different words, different functions, and different offices for mediation and intercession.” That is the entire issue here, Cathode. Strongs is a concordance, not a doctrinal authority. It gives glosses, not theological categories. Biblical doctrine is not built from English synonyms or Strongs glosses. It is built from Scripture itself.
A mediator stands between God and man as the means of access. An intercessor prays to God on behalf of another. Those are not the same role.
Paul makes the distinction explicit: “There is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5). If praying for someone made me a mediator, then Paul’s statement would be false, because millions of Christians pray for one another. But Paul says there is one mediator, not many. That means intercession is not mediation.
Intercession is prayer. Mediation is access.
Christ mediates; believers intercede.
The apostles never prayed to Mary or any departed believer, never asked them for intercession, and never taught the practice. The New Testament directs prayer to the Father, through the Son, by the Spirit, never through any other mediator.
GentleGospeller
Active Member
As stated before, Mary is, indeed, dead, buried and returned to dust - Mary’s devotion to Jesus
Roman Catholic sources state:
Roman Catholic Online Encyclopedia; “V”; “The Most Blessed Virgin Mary”; subsection “The Post-pentecostal Life Of Mary”; Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
- “... At the same time, it must be confessed that we do not possess any authentic documents bearing directly on Mary's post-Pentecostal life. ...” - CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Blessed Virgin Mary
- “... Regarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady's death, nothing certain is known. ...” - CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Assumption of Mary
- "St. John Damascene: St. John of Damascus (P.G., I, 96) thus formulates the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem: St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven." - CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Assumption of Mary
Roman Catholic Online Encyclopedia; “A”; “Assumption Of Mary”; subsection “The Feast Of The Assumption”; Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.
- "The feast of the Assumption: Regarding the origin of the feast we are also uncertain. It is more probably the anniversary of the dedication of some church than the actual anniversary of Our Lady's death. That it originated at the time of the Council of Ephesus, or that St. Damasus introduced it in Rome is only a hypothesis. ..." - CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Assumption of Mary
The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas Second and Revised Edition, 1920; Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province; Online Edition Copyright © 2008 by Kevin Knight Nihil Obstat. F. Innocentius Apap, O.P., S.T.M., Censor. Theol.; Imprimatur. Edus. Canonicus Surmont, Vicarius Generalis. Westmonasterii. APPROBATI
RDINIS; Nihil Obstat. F. Raphael Moss, O.P., S.T.L. and F. Leo Moore, O.P., S.T.L. Imprimatur. F. Beda Jarrett, O.P., S.T.L., A.M., Prior Provincialis Angliæ; MARIÆ IMMACULATÆ - SEDI SAPIENTIÆ- “I answer that, Nothing is handed down in the canonical Scriptures concerning the sanctification of the Blessed Mary as to her being sanctified in the womb; indeed, they do not even mention her birth. But as Augustine, in his tractate on the Assumption of the Virgin, argues with reason, since her body was assumed into heaven, and yet Scripture does not relate this ...” - SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The sanctification of the Blessed Virgin (Tertia Pars, Q. 27)
Finally:
- "... [page 115, highlighted with bold & underline] She was present at Pentecost (Act. 1:14-15, 2:1-4,7,16-18,42-44).
- She probably died (some assume 59 years of age) at John's home (Jhn. 19:27), and was probably moved and later buried near Nazareth in Galilee, next to, or in, Joseph's sepulchre, and there remains until her respective resurrection at the coming of Jesus in the 2nd Advent (Luk. 14:14; Act. 24:15; Rev. 20:4,5b,6). (Apocryphal sources say she died in Jerusalem, and buried in Gethsemane, or Jerusalem, and other places, but there is **__no evidence for any of those conclusions__**.) ..." - Word Pictures Of The Twelve Apostles, & Select Disciples Along With A Brief Apocryphal Martyrology by Aaron Earnest : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive