DeoOmnisGloria.com

Why do I feel like I am being ganged up on? :) I haven't read this yet, but will soon.

Jay: Please allow a fellow Roman Catholic to address what you wrote generally about Methodists and Lutherans and their positions of sola scriptura and Tradition. I will address your comments about Presbyterians and scripture later (a bit busy this morning).

I am not intending to fight the fight for either Methodists or Lutherans, but I am interested in a fair and clear (as clear as possible) understanding of what these Protestant brothers and sisters of ours actually do believe.

Your comments are in [[brackets]] below, followed by my comments.

[[First, they clearly state (articles of Religion of the Methodist Church) the belief we associate with most protestant churches: that Scripture contains “all things necessary to salvation”; in other words, Sacred Tradition is unnecessary.]]

Jay; This confessional statement is not/was not intended as such to be articulated vis-à-vis the Roman Catholic notion of Scripture and Tradition. The “in other words” is not implied, as you seem to think it is, but rather, an idea of Tradition (esp. as we Catholics understand it) is simply not part of the confession at all.

[[It’s interesting that they never address the problems of interpretation of Scripture. After all, interpretation is where most self-taught theologians get in trouble and where Tradition really comes into play.]]

The reason that there is nothing here on hermeneutics is simply because this is a “confessional statement,” and not the Methodist Church’s attempt to enunciate any denominationally orthodox hermeneutical principle(s).

Here is what the Methodist Church teaches (albeit briefly) about interpretation – this is from the UMC website (no deep researching necessary to find this):

//While we acknowledge the primacy of Scripture in theological reflection, our attempts to grasp its meaning always involve tradition, experience, and reason. Like Scripture, these may become creative vehicles of the Holy Spirit as they function within the Church. They quicken our faith, open our eyes to the wonder of God’s love, and clarify our understanding.

The Wesleyan heritage, reflecting its origins in the catholic and reformed ethos of English Christianity, directs us to a self-conscious use of these three sources in interpreting Scripture and in formulating faith statements based on the biblical witness. These sources are, along with Scripture, indispensable to our theological task.
The close relationship of tradition, experience, and reason appears in the Bible itself. Scripture witnesses to a variety of diverse traditions, some of which reflect tensions in interpretation within the early Judeo-Christian heritage. However, these traditions are woven together in the Bible in a manner that expresses the fundamental unity of God’s revelation as received and experienced by people in the diversity of their own lives.

The developing communities of faith judged them, therefore, to be an authoritative witness to that revelation. In recognizing the interrelationship and inseparability of the four basic resources for theological understanding, we are following a model that is present in the biblical text itself.//

So, Methodist do hold to an understanding of the value of “tradition” – but certainly not the “Tradition” that Roman Catholics hold too. Hence, scripture is still PRIMARY for Methodists, but it is not radically “sola scriptura” as it is often unfairly portrayed as in apologetic contexts.

And, about the Lutheran “statement” – the second interesting point you comment:

[[This states that the “New Testament is the first-hand proclamation of those who lived through the events of Jesus’ life.” Is that true? Actually, no. Think about the gospel writers, St. Paul, and some of the other writers; many weren’t around until after the ascension of Christ into heaven. This makes their accounts second-hand. How have they not caught that error yet?]]

Jay, we Catholics are ourselves, not without our own Biblicist, biblical literalists and/or fideistic biblical literalists either – two closely related and rather non-hermeneutical positions that believe the NT to be “the first-hand proclamation of those who lived through the events of Jesus’ life.” For example, most of the folks at the EWTN Q&A Experts page on the WWW are biblical literalist themselves and would agree with the statement “New Testament is the first-hand proclamation of those who lived through the events of Jesus’ life.”

Jay, a bit more from the Methodist perspective on Scripture and tradition (“tradition” with a little “t”).

But first, their statement on the sufficiency of scripture, which again, is primary for Methodism.

On Scripture & a bit of Tradition:
[[The Bible is sacred canon for Christian people, formally acknowledged as such by historic ecumenical councils of the Church. Our doctrinal standards identify as canonical thirty-nine books of the Old Testament and the twenty-seven books of the New Testament.
Our standards affirm the Bible as the source of all that is "necessary" and "sufficient" unto salvation (Articles of Religion) and "is to be received through the Holy Spirit as the true rule and guide for faith and practice" (Confession of Faith).
We properly read Scripture within the believing community, informed by the tradition of that community. We interpret individual texts in light of their place in the Bible as a whole.
We are aided by scholarly inquiry and personal insight, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. As we work with each text, we take into account what we have been able to learn about the original context and intention of that text. In this understanding we draw upon the careful historical, literary, and textual studies of recent years, which have enriched our understanding of the Bible.]]

Now, on our Methodist brethren’s understanding of “tradition” – remember, this is NOT a reflection by Methodists on the Roman Catholic understanding of Scripture and Tradition BOTH as the divine well spring of revelation. It is vital toward a truly authentic understanding of what our Protestant brethren are saying to resist reading their doctrinal and confessional statements as being articulated over-against Roman Catholicism.

Now, Methodists on “tradition”:

[[Tradition
The theological task does not start anew in each age or each person. Christianity does not leap from New Testament times to the present as though nothing were to be learned from that great cloud of witnesses in between. For centuries Christians have sought to interpret the truth of the gospel for their time.
In these attempts, tradition, understood both in terms of process and form, has played an important role. The passing on and receiving of the gospel among persons, regions, and generations constitutes a dynamic element of Christian history. The formulations and practices that grew out of specific circumstances constitute the legacy of the corporate experience of earlier Christian communities.
These traditions are found in many cultures around the globe. But the history of Christianity includes a mixture of ignorance, misguided zeal, and sin. Scripture remains the norm by which all traditions are judged.
The story of the church reflects the most basic sense of tradition, the continuing activity of God’s Spirit transforming human life. Tradition is the history of that continuing environment of grace in and by which all Christians live, God’s self-giving love in Jesus Christ. As such, tradition transcends the story of particular traditions.
In this deeper sense of tradition, all Christians share a common history. Within that history, Christian tradition precedes Scripture, and yet Scripture comes to be the focal expression of the tradition. As United Methodists, we pursue our theological task in openness to the richness of both the form and power of tradition.
The multiplicity of traditions furnishes a richly varied source for theological reflection and construction. For United Methodists, certain strands of tradition have special importance as the historic foundation of our doctrinal heritage and the distinctive expressions of our communal existence.
We are now challenged by traditions from around the world that accent dimensions of Christian understanding that grow out of the sufferings and victories of the downtrodden. These traditions help us rediscover the biblical witness to God’s special commitment to the poor, the disabled, the imprisoned, the oppressed, the outcast. In these persons we encounter the living presence of Jesus Christ.
These traditions underscore the equality of all persons in Jesus Christ. They display the capacity of the gospel to free us to embrace the diversity of human cultures and appreciate their values. They reinforce our traditional understanding of the inseparability of personal salvation and social justice. They deepen our commitment to global peace.
A critical appreciation of these traditions can compel us to think about God in new ways, enlarge our vision of shalom, and enhance our confidence in God’s provident love.
Tradition acts as a measure of validity and propriety for a community’s faith insofar as it represents a consensus of faith. The various traditions that presently make claims upon us may contain conflicting images and insights of truth and validity. We examine such conflicts in light of Scripture, reflecting critically upon the doctrinal stance of our Church.
It is by the discerning use of our standards and in openness to emerging forms of Christian identity that we attempt to maintain fidelity to the apostolic faith.

At the same time, we continue to draw on the broader Christian tradition as an expression of the history of divine grace within which Christians are able to recognize and welcome one another in love. ]]

Toward a better understanding of our Christian brothers and sisters...Peace!

Jack,
Thanks for adding the details - I was looking for a quick explanation that was as "authoritative" as possible, which is difficult in some areas.

It's interesting that the Methodist's acknowledge that "tradition precedes Scripture," but then would argue that tradition is not equal to Scripture after this point. I'll have to think about that a little, but it seems nonsensical.

Any other additions are appreciated - I am trying to get as accurate a portrayal as possible. We often have members of these faiths on our blog that do not understand their church's position on sola scriptura.

God bless,
Jay

Sola Scriptura means simply that all one needs for salvation is what is written in Scripture. That includes the traditions within the scripture. I understand as a former Catholic the need to justify certain traditions and doctrines by the ROMAN Catholic church as being necessary for salvation as being Scriptural. However in actuality the Roman Catholic Church does incorporate practices not seen in the Bible. For example, the communion of saints...not one apostle, not Jesus nor a prophet ever decided to ask for aid from a soul in heaven.
If I follow sola scriptura, then that must mean you follow sola ecclesia. As a Catholic I remember that I questioned if Mary had other children. Without going into linguistics of the word Greek translation, I was told that I was interpreting certain verses improperly, despite the obvious. In essence I was told to interpret the passages that I was reading in the least likely way that a commoner who read it would understand it to be.
So unless the Vatican teaches it, then you must not believe it to be true. The reason you believe that the Vatican must be correct is because someone told you to accept the scriptural interpretation that Peter was the first Pope and that the Pope is infallible in matters pertaining to God. I know, I was there. So on one hand you have sola scriptura and on the other you have sola ecclesia. They just operate in reverse. One goes to the scriptures to verify a truth. The other goes to scripture to make it fit the truth in order to support a tradition.
In the Bible there are many references to an individual giving the ultimate authority to Scriptures. You will see words such as IT IS WRITTEN or Have you not read. Where have you seen IT IS TRADITION, written in the Bible?
If you want to question how the Bible came about, be my guest. I believe that God's will was still done and the book the that has 66 different books known as the Bible is Theopneustos. We can go into history, but even history will show that early church fathers discredited the Apocrypha or Deuterocanon as merely good books but NOT inspired. Nonetheless, that doesn't matter, God's will was done and is still being done today. Even if you factor in the Apocrypha, which I have read, there is still no support for communion of saints, Mary's assumption and many other Roman Catholic practices. The reason that I went off on a tangent is because I know the next argumentative point of a Catholic apologist. The next point is to claim that Catholics came up with the Bible. This is far from true.
In short Sola Scriptura is scriptual. God himself said that everything needed to make man perfect is written in scriptures.

2 Timothy 3:16-17
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto good works."

If you can't interpret that to mean that ALL SCRIPTURE is used for being authoritative on matters concerning the will of God and that it contains all that a man needs to be made perfect in God's eye's, than you must not be speaking english. Traditions are fine, as long they are supported in Scripture. If you believe what you follow is 100% supported in Scripture, the you too are also a sola scripturist:) Mormons believe what they follow is supported by Scripture, but that doesn't mean they are correct.

You all be blessed

Henry, Henry, Henry,
Somebody suckered you into believing this stuff! I’ll address your points one by one:

1) Sola Scriptura is not Biblical and is found nowhere in the Bible. We’ve had numerous conversations on this site and in the end, every protestant has either abandoned the argument or admitted that sola scriptura isn’t in Scripture. I also always ask this question: if Christ intended sola scriptura why didn’t He tell the apostles to write a book, rather than to “preach”? Why didn’t He give some indication of who should write the book or what should be included?

2) The communion of Saints is seen throughout the Bible, of course one of the key evidences of it was removed from your Bible by Martin Luther. However, even using the part of the Bible you accept, the communion of Saints is clear and evident. Read this article for more information on the communion of Saints.

3) Trying to suggest that a person must follow sola scriptura or “sola ecclesia” (which is a silly anti-Catholic concept) creates a false dichotomy. The church teaches correctly that Scripture and Tradition are inseparable. Without Tradition, Scripture would never have come about (it was written much, much later and most of the New Testament was written by those who did not ever see or meet Christ while He was on earth). Secondarily, without Tradition, Scripture becomes incomprehensible - this is obvious when you look at the thousands upon thousands of protestant denominations all teaching different versions of Christianity! You likely misunderstood verses because you didn’t take the time to try and really learn about life when those books were written. Remember, the Bible wasn’t written in English by Americans! And we don’t even have the original copies of the Bible, we simply have the translations St. Jerome did long after the originals had been written. This is the perfect example of why Christ created the Church in Matthew 16:18; if he hadn’t every uninformed reader would render a different interpretation of the events that occurred during Christ’s life.

4) It’s interesting that you try to defend your point by suggesting that the places in the Bible that say “It is written” justify your actions. However, you should consider that those verses never quote a New Testament passage. They only quote from the Old Testament. Why? Because the New Testament writers did not know they were writing Scripture. Their correspondence wasn’t declared Scripture until almost 400 A.D. They were referring to the Old Testament, not the New. Does this invalidate the New? No, because it is an illogical argument. Also note that Paul ordered us to obey the “oral” and “written” word. Hmmm . . . are you trying to say Paul was wrong?

5) The early Church Fathers argued more over the Book of Revelation than they did the Apocryptha! So should we throw that book out as well? Is that the standard that we should use to decide what is or isn’t Scriptural? If so, it’s a silly way of understanding truth. In the Apocryptha we are required to pray for the dead - I think that’s a big start to the communion of Saints!

6) If Catholics didn’t come up with the Bible, then who did? The only Christians on earth were Catholics at that time! Are you suggesting that pagans wrote and compiled the Bible? This is an interesting argument - most protestants aren’t so blind to historical fact that they would make this insane claim! In reality, members of the Catholic church wrote the books of the Bible and the bishops got together and declared the New Testament canon in 395 A.D. You, in fact, must trust that the Catholic Church was infallible in deciding this canon, except you believe that they messed up on the Apocryptha (it’s very Catholic, so I understand Luther’s dilemma). Oh - and they forgot to add a word to the Bible, which Luther did later, apparently he was infallible, too?

7) First, 2 Timothy was referring to the Old Testament, see point #4 above. But even if we suggest that God knew the Catholic Church was going to compile the Bible later, this verse simply teaches that Scripture is valid and true. It doesn’t follow the sola scriptura concept that Tradition isn’t also valid and true. In fact, it doesn’t invalidate any other sources of Truth, period. Please try again. (By the way, I speak English, but the Bible wasn’t written in English - it’s a fatal error to assume the translator had no effect on the translation).

Henry, I’ll pray to Mary and the Saints that you come home to the Catholic Church. I highly recommend you read the early Church Fathers and see just how Catholic the Church was and is.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,
"However, even using the part of the Bible you accept, the communion of Saints is clear and evident."

Where does someone pray with a dead saint in the Bible?? Please show me. If you can show me, that would make it clear and evident as you say.

"Also note that Paul ordered us to obey the “oral” and “written” word. Hmmm . . . are you trying to say Paul was wrong?"

Paul did say to follow traditions whether oral OR written. However, he also informs us in 1 Tim 3:14 he WROTE instructions down so that church would know how to conduct itself.

I could go on but I am sure you have heard these points that I am bringing up before. The church does not dictate truth, it is God who dictates truth and His truth is the Word. The church is to adhere to God's will which is His Word. If anyone practices anything that contradicts His word or is not in His word...then it is not truth. So while you pray for me, uneccessarily to Mary and the Saints...I'll pray directly to Christ so that you and I can come to a better and more clear understanding of who He truly is.

God Bless

Robert,

You attempt to separate the Church and God which is unbiblical. St. Paul compares the relationship between husband and wife to that of Christ and the Church(Eph 5:21-33), even referring to as a great mystery (Eph 5:32). But more importantly, it was Christ Himself who established the Church (Matt 16:18-19) giving that Church authority to "bind and loose". This is also confirmed by St. Paul in 1 Timothy 3:15 where he calls the Church "the pillar and bulwark of truth."

The intercession of those in heaven or, in the Old Testament, that place of waiting is referred to in several verses:
(1) 2 Maccabees 15:11-16
(2) Tobit 12:12
(3) Revelations 5:8
(4) Revelations 8:3
(5) Luke 16:19-31 (Jesus refers to the rich man's request for Abraham to send Lazarus to relieve his suffering and then to warn his brothers).
(6) Matthew 17:1-8 (Elijah and Moses come back and talk with Jesus).

Both of these passages from the Gospels point to the activity of those who have gone before us. One Catholic apologist, Karl Keating makes the following argument:

While the Bible does not explicitly refer to the veneration and invocation of saints, there is scriptural warrant for the practice. First there is the veneration offered angels (Jos 5:14; Dan 8:17; Tob 12:16). This veneration is predicated on the angels' supernatural dignity, which comes from their union with God (Mt 18:10). Since the saints are also united with God (1 Cor 13:12; 1 John 3:2), it follows that they are also worthy of veneration.
- Catholicism and Fundamentalism, pg. 264

Just think about it.

In Christ,
Joe

Joe,

Tobit 12:12 "12:12. When thou didst pray with tears, and didst bury the dead, and didst leave thy dinner, and hide the dead by day in thy house, and bury them by night, I offered thy prayer to the Lord."

Normally people grieve when burying there dead. We usually pray that the peace of God comes upon them during the grieving. Regardless, this passage in no way shows that communion of saints is needed or encouraged. Even in this apocryphal book, in the verses you point out there is not a clear teaching of purgatory or praying with and for the dead.
As for you reference to Maccabbees...I looked it up and failed to see the connection with communion of saints and prayers for the dead.
As for your references to Revelations... could you please elaborate on how these passages "clearly" support communion of saints and prayers for the dead.

"Luke 16:19-31 (Jesus refers to the rich man's request for Abraham to send Lazarus to relieve his suffering and then to warn his brothers)."

This was a parable that Jesus was giving. In this parable both the rich man and Lazarus the poor beggar were dead. When they died, the rich man went to hell...and Lazarus went to Abraham's side(Paradise). The rich man was in agony, and begged for some relief to Abraham.
Abraham replied that there was nothing that he could do. The rich man then asked him to send Lazurus to warn his brothers. To which Abraham replied "they have Moses and the Prophets." Moses and the Prophets means the Old Testament.

Look to Luke 24:44 and you will see Christ said the following.

He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."
The he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.

Abraham in short told the rich man that the Scriptures which testified about Christ was the way that they could avoid hell. Scripture backs this up.

"Protestants see nothing wrong with asking a fellow Christian brother or sister, still with their imperfections and faults, to pray for them, yet asking those who have gone before us into heaven to pray for us is a BIG problem. It just doesn't make sense logically"

Matthew 18:18 "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." 18:19 "AGAIN, I tell you if two on you on EARTH agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. 18:20 For where two or three COME TOGETHER in my name, there I am with them."

Jesus gave specific instructions. Jesus emphasized two on earth, meaning two alive. Is that so hard to see? Jesus never taught prayers to the dead. He gave clear instructions...two on earth. Communion of saints is not a teaching of Christ, that is why it is not practiced. Sadly Joe, another reason that it is wrong is that many people, like my family in Mexico get confused and start worshipping instead of asking for prayers from saints. Although it may not be intended, the doctrine of communion of saints leaves the door open for idolatry. This is a reason that I personally believe(this is just my belief) why Jesus did not teach communion of saints. But more importantly and definitively binding are the instructions given to us by our Lord Jesus on how to pray together. Two of us on earth.:)

Be blessed

Marc,
I'll answer some of this for Joe, but he may come back and complete any thoughts I'm missing.

First, in Tobit you're missing something huge: that's an angel talking. In other words, an angel is praying to God for them. The communion of saints includes the angels and essentially means that the saints and angels pray to God for us. This is a very clear reference, if taken in context.

In Maccabees you have a high priest praying and who answers his prayer? Jeremiah, who had been long dead at the time, by giving him a sword and saying it was "a gift from God." Again, this shows the dead are actively working in our lives.

In Revelation 5:8 we see the Saints in heaven (the elders) taking the prayers of the saints on earth to God.

In the passage from Luke, we have one man in heaven (Lazarus) and one in Hades. The point of this passage is: if someone in Hell can ask a saint in heaven for help, why can't we? The difference between heaven and earth is smaller, would you agree?

In Matthew 18, Jesus is only talking to the apostles, the priests - He is not addressing the crowds. And secondarily, Jesus doesn't suggest we should not ask those already in heaven for help.

Really the question is, "Do those in heaven know what's going on down here?" Yes. Look at Rev 6:9-11, where those in heaven cry out for judgment on the things going on here. Also see Luke 15:7-10, where those in heaven rejoice at the conversion of a single person on earth.

But does this matter? Yes. In 1 Peter 3:12 and James 5:16, we see the prayers of the holy are more powerful; who is more holy than those already in heaven?

The dead in heaven are still a key part of God's church and have plenty of time to pray for you. Idolatry is worship of something such as the saints or maybe even a book. We don't worship the saints, we ask them to pray for us. That's like saying that asking others to pray for you leaves the door open to idolatry - it's not a valid criticism of the truth.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

"In the passage from Luke, we have one man in heaven (Lazarus) and one in Hades. The point of this passage is: if someone in Hell can ask a saint in heaven for help, why can't we? The difference between heaven and earth is smaller, would you agree? "

They were both in Hades, a compartment in Hades was Paradise. That is who Jesus took up when He ascended. However, that is not even important in this argument. The rich man and Lazurus were both dead. Second, to answer your question:

"if someone in Hell can ask a saint in heaven for help, why can't we? "

This parable clearly shows that asking for prayer to the dead is useless. Abraham said there was nothing he could do. Is that so hard to understand? He merely pointed the Law and the Prophets as being the only thing that can save the rich man's relatives. There was no success with the dead man's prayers.

"And secondarily, Jesus doesn't suggest we should not ask those already in heaven for help."

God did not suggest that more than one wife was wrong. However God made it originally as one man and one woman. Anything else other than that is not of God thereby it is not truth. So while Jesus did not SPECIFICALLY say, do not pray to those already in heaven, He did not teach it. Therefore it was not important, therefore the neccessity of communion of saints is false. More importantly, in 1 Tim 2:5 it is written

For there is one GOD and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus....

Jesus gave instructions on prayer. Scripture says there is but one mediator. These are clearly pointed out in Scripture. However there are no instructions given to pray to or with those who have already passed on?
I believe that Jesus was clear on how to pray. IF anything was important, Jesus would have mentioned it. The important part of the parable was not about prayer to the dead. It was about salvation through Christ. It was about how earthly riches cannot compare with heavenly riches. It also was illustrative of how Heaven is accessible to all, poor or rich. That access is through Christ.

Be blessed

Jay,

"In the passage from Luke, we have one man in heaven (Lazarus) and one in Hades. The point of this passage is: if someone in Hell can ask a saint in heaven for help, why can't we? The difference between heaven and earth is smaller, would you agree? "

They were both in Hades, a compartment in Hades was Paradise. That is who Jesus took up when He ascended. However, that is not even important in this argument. The rich man and Lazurus were both dead. Second, to answer your question:

"if someone in Hell can ask a saint in heaven for help, why can't we? "

This parable clearly shows that asking for prayer to the dead is useless. Abraham said there was nothing he could do. Is that so hard to understand? He merely pointed the Law and the Prophets as being the only thing that can save the rich man's relatives. There was no success with the dead man's prayers.

"And secondarily, Jesus doesn't suggest we should not ask those already in heaven for help."

God did not suggest that more than one wife was wrong. However God made it originally as one man and one woman. Anything else other than that is not of God thereby it is not truth. So while Jesus did not SPECIFICALLY say, do not pray to those already in heaven, He did not teach it. Therefore it was not important, therefore the neccessity of communion of saints is false. More importantly, in 1 Tim 2:5 it is written

For there is one GOD and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus....

Jesus gave instructions on prayer. Scripture says there is but one mediator. These are clearly pointed out in Scripture. However there are no instructions given to pray to or with those who have already passed on?
I believe that Jesus was clear on how to pray. IF anything was important, Jesus would have mentioned it. The important part of the parable was not about prayer to the dead. It was about salvation through Christ. It was about how earthly riches cannot compare with heavenly riches. It also was illustrative of how Heaven is accessible to all, poor or rich. That access is through Christ.

Be blessed

Marc,
What about the passages in Revelation? What about the other passages? You can't try to discredit one of the many sources of information and feel you are correct.

Here's a question: Does the Bible teach those in heaven are aware of events on earth? Once we establish this, then I'll go into more detail on the second issue of whether they can and will help us.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

Who are the 24 elders?

I'll get back to you after your answer:)

God Bless

Marc

Marc,
Stop trying to change the subject. The only thing that matters about the elders in this discussion is:
a) they are in heaven
b) they are aware of what is happening on earth.

Again, do you refuse to acknowledge that the Bible clearly teaches those in heaven are aware of events on earth? Why can't you answer this simple question with a clear answer?

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

Ok, the answer is that in detail the way God and only God knows what is going on earth...no. The saints do not know what is going on.
As far as Rev 5:8, why do you feel that the prayers of saints were directed towards the elders? If you believe that by holding the bowls with the prayers of the saints indicates that prayers were directed towards the saints and angels, fine. Then you also should be consistent with that them and believe that in Rev 15:7 that the wrath of God was directed towards the angels.
Of course that isn't true, nor does Rev 5:8 show that prayers of saints on earth were directed toward elders and the angels.
Whether a saint who has been made perfect in his/her new body, or an angel, they are not omnipresent or omniscient. They do not receive special powers which gives them the ability to know the heart of men. Only God knows the heart of men. Whether they know in general what is going on earth, for example if a war is going on...maybe. That still doesn't prove much as far as praying to saints.
God gave the proper procedure to worship Him. In this procedure, you cannot find one example where someone in the Bible prayed to a believer in Christ who had passed into eternal life. Not one example.

"And secondarily, Jesus doesn't suggest we should not ask those already in heaven for help."

This statement is dangerous because it implies that Jesus wasn't thorough. Jesus did teach prayers to saints whatsoever, nor did He teach prayers to Mary. However according to the statement you made, since He did not say "Do not pray to Mary or to Saints", that means that it is OK to pray to saints and Mary. By mans rationalization is this doctrine made. Not by God's instructions but by man's thinking.

Look to Leviticus 10:1 and see what happens to Aaron's sons for worhipping in a manner which is not of God.

God Bless

Okay Marc,
So what about Luke 15:7-10? The angels "rejoice" over one sinner coming back to God? Yet you would say the Bible is wrong, that the angels don't know this sort of thing, correct? How about the angel Gabriel coming to Mary and annoucing she was pregnant? The angel telling Joseph what he should do in this case? The two Old Testament prophets having a discussion with Christ during the Transfiguration? The prayer in Maccabees being answered by Jerimiah?

The Bible is overwhelming in it's suggestion that those in heaven know what's going on in detail on earth. Note that I wasn't using Revelation to say that the prayers were going to these men, I'm just trying to show that those in heaven know what is occuring here, and clearly those in Revelation are aware of details.

You suggest that those in heaven aren't aware of earth, but the Bible teaches otherwise. Please show me a verse that says they are unaware, I've shown you numerous that say they were.

By the way, we'll get to more examples later, but I first want you to realize that those in heaven are keenly aware of the events unfolding on earth, down to the detail of a single sinner reconciling with God.

God bless,
Jay

PS - we don't use the saints as a "mediator" between God and man - that is the role of Christ alone. We ask the saints to pray for us, however, just in the way you ask friends to pray for you.

Jay,

If you read, I said that saints and angels do not know what is occuring on earth the way God does. Angels do rejoice when a sinner is saved. I never said anything contrary to that. As a matter of fact I posted the following...
"Whether a saint who has been made perfect in his/her new body, or an angel, they are not omnipresent or omniscient. They do not receive special powers which gives them the ability to know the heart of men. Only God knows the heart of men. Whether they know in general what is going on earth, for example if a war is going on...maybe. That still doesn't prove much as far as praying to saints."
My point is the following, a saint nor an angel cannot know what is in my heart, your heart, or any man's heart. Only God knows. A saint or an angel does not know everything occuring on earth at the same time. Only God knows all things at all times. Does Saint so and so know about the war in Iraq? Maybe. Does saint so and so know about every individual in that war? No. Does God know? Yes he does. DO you see the difference. Second, this argument is not about whether those in heaven are aware of the events on earth. It was about the validity of praying to saints.
DO saints know the heart of all men?
Are saints all knowing?
The answer is no to both of these questions.

Jay, who told the angel that Mary was pregnant?
Wasn't it God who sent the angel?
God informed the angel, the angel did not see for himself that Mary was pregnant.
Nevertheless, there is no one seen praying to the angel. Mary could have asked the angel to pray, but she didn't.
Whether angels and saints know what is going down on earth is irrelevant, because there is no teachings by Jesus or the apostles that teaches that one should seek a saint in heaven for aid in prayer. If it was better to seek a prayer of a saint in heaven, then scripture would have shown Stephen being prayed to. However, Paul never instructed anyone to seek Stephen for aid in prayer.
There is no support for prayers being directed towards saints or angels in heaven found in Scripture.

All I ask is that you show one example in Scripture where a saint on earth prayed to a saint in Heaven. Did Jesus ever mentioned praying to saints, did his Apostles. I haven't read that part in the Bible...so if you find in the Bible...please let me know:)

God Bless

Marc,
First, you're reading a lot into the Bible. Where does it say the Saints and Angels aren't aware of everything on earth? Where does it say they aren't as aware as God? There's a difference between them being omniscient and them being aware of what is occuring on earth. But we don't really know much, other than the fact that they know when a person truly converts to Christianity (rather than pretends, which does occur).

So, we can agree that the Saints and Angels to a pretty good degree know what is occuring on earth. The next question is: do they take part in these activities? I think we can agree quickly that the answer is yes. I'll just point out some of the Scriptures where Angels and/or Saints take part:
- 1 Samuel 28:12-15ff. Samuel appears to Saul after Samuel's death when Saul calls him to help.
- Tobit 12:12-15. We already discussed this, but an Angel prays for those on earth.
- 2 Maccabees 15:13-14. The dead priest Onias appears and it is noted that he (present tense) "prays much" for the people and for Jeremiah.
- Zechariah 1:12 ff. An angel prays to God for a judgment and then talks with those on earth about their situation.
- Matthew 17:1ff. During the Transfiguration Moses and Elijah appear and "talk" with Jesus, probably about His current state of affairs.
- Matthew 18:10. In Heaven "little ones" actually have "angels." It can be reasoned that an angel dedicated to a child will help support the child through prayers to God.
- Matthew 26:53. Jesus can ask for the assistance of angels.
- Acts 12:15. It's interesting that they just assume we each have an angel on our behalf, who can appear on earth.
- Matthew 27:50ff. The dead rise and appear to many in the city - this is contact between the living and the holy dead.
- Hebrews 1:13-14. Angels are called "ministering spirits sent forth to serve" for our sake.
- Hebrews 12:1. We are surrounded by "so great a cloud of witnesses."
- 1 Corinthians 4:9. Apostles are "spectacle[s] to the world, to angels and to men."
- Revelation 6:9-10. The martyrs cry out for God's judgment in heaven - in other words, they are asking God for favors.
- Revelation 8:3-6. An angel is shown as actively involved with the prayers of "all the saints" and acts upon them.

When you begin examining this evidence (of which there is much), I think I cover all aspects of this issue. First, dead Saints and Angels are aware of events here (Luke 15:10, Hebrews 12:1, 1 Cor 4:9). They act in our events (Jeremiah 15:1, Maccabees 15:14, Revelation 6:9-10). They interact with our prayers (Tobit 12:12, Rev 5:8, Rev 8:3-4).

You keep insisting that I show you someone in the Bible who asked for the help of Saints or Angels, so I have (1 Sam 28:12-15, Matt 18:10, Rev 8:3-6). Now, where in the Bible does God condemn someone for asking the Saints or Angels for help? Please quote me a verse where it is condemned or someone is killed for doing so. Note that many protestant scholars will agree that this is allowed in the Bible. I don’t think your opinions on whether or not it may lead to idol worship are valid, I just want Scriptural references.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

You never cease to amaze me.

" 1 Samuel 28:12-15ff. Samuel appears to Saul after Samuel's death when Saul calls him to help."
You chose a bad example Jay. First off, Saul went to a spiritist. That was the first mistake. In Leviticus 20:6 God says that He will cut off those who turn to mediums and spiritists. This is such a bad example that it clearly shows that to use this as support for praying to saints, screams of being taken out of context. Saul was in rebellion to God, and when God didn't answer Him...he turned to a spiritist. When the spiritist saw the image of Samuel...that spirit asked why was he disturbed. There was no comfort given to Saul by the spirit. Matter of fact, Saul left in tears and depressed. Eventually Saul died in battle. But why did Saul die?
1 Chronicles 10:13- Saul died because he was unfaithful to the Lord;he did not keep the word of the Lord and even consulted a medium for guidance, and did not inquire of the Lord.
All this put together clearly shows that God is the only one Saul should have went to.
Was that really Samuel's spirit? How could it be? If Saul did the right thing, why would he have died? Clearly the Scripture you have used to support your belief is actually support for the error of seeking other spirits...even of believers in the Lord.

Tobit is apocryphal and I don't believe it to be Holy Scripture. However I read the passage you referred to and it reads

"I can now tell you that when you, Tobit, and Sarah prayed, it was I who presented and read the record of your prayer before the Glory of the Lord; and I did the same thing when you used to bury the dead.
When you did not hesitate to get up and leave your dinner in order to go and bury the dead.."

The angel read a record...not that the angel heard the prayer and relayed it. If you read the whole sentence the angel also read a record of when he buried Tobit buried the dead. There is nothing to indicate that the prayers were directed toward the angel. Lastly, the people praised God at the end of the chapter...and not hte angel. Once again, I do not accept the Apocrypha as inspired Scripture, however...this chapter does show anyone praying to a saint.
Again...the angel read a record. He didn't hear their prayers or see them bury the dead...he read an account of it.

Zechariah was speaking of what was occuring in a prophetic vision. Of course this vision was given by God. How does this support praying to saints? Where do you see in this vision that prayers are directed toward the angel??

"Matthew 18:10. In Heaven "little ones" actually have "angels." It can be reasoned that an angel dedicated to a child will help support the child through prayers to God.
- Matthew 26:53. Jesus can ask for the assistance of angels."

Angels serve God. They are dispensed by God.
Jesus could have called angels down to do His will if He felt the need to? Angels are around children to protect them. I pray that God keeps His angels encamped around my house and in my house.
Your reasoning that a child can use pray to angel, does make it so. There is nothing that supports that notion. So far we have taken all your points and broken them down one by one. You have yet to show where...someone on Earth...seeks a saint...and that saint relays the message to God. You have yet to show that.

"Hebrews 1:13-14. Angels are called "ministering spirits sent forth to serve" for our sake."

I don't dispute that Jay. However, where does it say that we are to pray to angels? Mind you angels are not believers who passed away. Regardless, where are the instructions on praying to angels?

"1 Corinthians 4:9. Apostles are "spectacle[s] to the world, to angels and to men."
Okay that fine, but where are the instructions to pray to angels?
By the way...notice that we have been making reference to angels and not saints.

"Revelation 6:9-10. The martyrs cry out for God's judgment in heaven - in other words, they are asking God for favors."
They were crying out to be avenged. Still no proof of people praying to saints found here.

"Revelation 8:3-6. An angel is shown as actively involved with the prayers of "all the saints" and acts upon them."

Once again where does it say that the prayers were directed toward the angels? Lastly, it is my understanding that angels do as God tells them to. Did the angels act on their own...or did God instruct them to Jay?
Rev 8:3-6 does not show anyone asking an angel for help. The angel presented prayers to God...but how do you know that they were directed to the angel? Because he held the censer with the prayer of the saints? Then if that is the case, then you also believe that the angel in Rev 15:7 holding the bowl of wrath was the subject of God's wrath.

Last point...
"Please quote me a verse where it is condemned or someone is killed for doing so. "

I'll type again...."1 Chronicles 10:13- Saul died because he was unfaithful to the Lord;he did not keep the word of the Lord and even consulted a medium for guidance, and did not inquire of the Lord."

Jay, Saul died because of seeking a spirit other than God.

Jay, its a simple question...is there an example of someone on earth...praying to a saint or an angel? Not an angel praying for us, or angels being around us, or angels knowing what is going on in the earth. But an example where someone in the Bible called on a saint in prayer and asked that saint to intercede with them to God. Please...if it is in the Bible...show me.

God Bless

Marc,
Let me point out that Catholics do not use a medium for talking with the Saints and Angels. You're right, I probably shouldn't have quoted that verse, but it does show that the dead are aware of events on earth. They know what's going on here, even though Saul tried to use a medium to get help from the Saints without God; Clearly incorrect. We simply ask the Saints to pray for us, which is never condemned in the Bible in the least - at least not that I've read. Please let me know if you have any verses condemning this practice (1 Chr 10:13 focuses on how Saul did this).

In the end, you overlooked some of the verses I supplied above. I think one issue we have here is the word "pray". We worship God in the Mass. When Catholics say we "pray" to the "cloud of witnesses" we simply mean we ask them for help. This is not a form of worship. Protestants don't have the mass so they often associate prayer with worship.

So, I think I should try to simplify this:
- We know Angels and Saints actively pray to God (Zechariah 1:12, Rev 6:9-10, Rev 8:3-6). They are not separated from God simply because of their death (Christ conquered death for all of us).
- We know the prayers of the holy are more powerful than other prayers (1 Peter 3:12, James 5:16). I think we can agree with this.
- We know the Bible does not ever condemn asking those in heaven (angels or saints) for help.
- And I know that the Bible in two particular places depicts Saints and Angels helping those who ask on earth (Tobit 12:12-15 - ps you have a bad, bad translation - and 2 Maccabees 15:13-14). You can choose to ignore this.

The question is, why wouldn't we ask for the prayers of the holy? The Bible doesn't explictly explain the Trinity (in fact the words of Christ are often used to dispute this notion) and the Bible clearly tells us to go to church on Saturday at a Synagogue, but you seem to accept that these have changed. If you can show where asking for help from Saints and Angels is condemned (Saul was criticized for going through a medium, not for asking a Saint for help), then you might have a case. But for 2,000 years this has been considered a good practice for Christians - it wasn't criticized by anyone until 1,600 A.D. - so I think the burden of proof is on you.

Ultimately, sola scriptura is the defective doctrine that takes away your ability to ask those holy men and women in heaven for prayers, which is a travesty.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

"If you can show where asking for help from Saints and Angels is condemned (Saul was criticized for going through a medium, not for asking a Saint for help)"

Not only was going to the spiritist incorrect, but Saul did not inquire the Lord. Instead he seeked to inquire Samuel.
Again the verse in Zec that you point out was a prophetic vision.
Once again if you believe that the prayers of saints in Rev 8:3-6 were directed to the angel, then you also believe that the wrath of God was directed to the angel in Rev 15:7.
As for my translation for the verse in Tobit that you point to, Tobit prayed to God and the God sent his angel to Tobit. The angel said he read a record an archive of his prayer and an record of Tobit burying the dead. What is a record Jay? IT is something that occured. Notice the angel did not say I heard your prayer. Notice in Acts 10:4

"The angel answered,"Your prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God."

If the angel had said, "I heard your prayer" than I would understand why you believe Tobit to support praying to saints in heaven. Find one example where an angel says I have heard your prayers. You can't. Unfortunately for your argument the angel only read an account of the prayer to God. As a matter of fact, Tobit's prayer to the Lord prompted the Lord to send his angel. Read Tobit 3 to see the prayer Tobit prayed. Who is it addressed to Jay. I can tell that it is not the angel.
As for 2 Macc 13-14 this was a vision in a book which at the end even shows that it is not God inspired.

"
2Mac 15:37
Thus went it with Nicanor: and from that time forth the
Hebrews had the city in their power. And here will I make an
end.

2Mac 15:38
And if I have done well, and as is fitting the story, it is
that which I desired: but if slenderly and meanly, it is that
which I could attain unto."
Nonetheless, do the people in 2 Maccabees pray to Onias? Remember, I don't accept these books as inspired...but did the people in 2 Maccabees pray to Onias? Yes or no.

Jay, once again you are diverging the topic with discussing church on Sunday or Saturday. We already have seen discussions on this site about that topic. For now lets focus on the topic of praying to saints. If you want we can revisit that topic afterwards. So I'll save you some time...
Lets assume that those in the Bible thought and rationalized like you did. Why then, was it not practiced by those in the Bible to pray to saints. If it was such a good thing, why didn't Jesus teach it? Why didn't the apostles do it?
My last question...can you find somewhere in scripture where an individual on Earth asks a saint in heaven to pray for them??
Answer the question...it's simple to answer. Can you find an example?
The answer is no...unless you can show me otherwise.

God Bless

Okay Marc,
In some respects were at an impasse. You deny anything that isn't explicitly stated in Scripture, which would include Tradition. Scripture doesn't obviously spell this out, since Martin Luther would have removed any books that did.

So, I'll just restate my position in a different way and get your thoughts. First, we can agree that we are all part of the body of Christ, which is a single vine (John 15:1-8). Paul explains this further in 1 Cor 12:25-27 when he points out that each of us has a specific function (see also Rom 12:4-5). I would argue that those who die in Christ are not chopped off the vine, but remain on it.

There are numerous verses in the Bible where one person asks for another's prayers, why can we not ask those already in heaven (which by definition means they are more holy than us) for their prayers? This would not be creating another mediator between God and man, just as me asking you to pray does not create another mediator.

I believe this is implicit in Scripture just as the Trinity is, although not stated as clearly as you would like. Since it is not condemned, it would be almost impossible for you to suggest it is wrong - after all everyone is entitled to their personal interpretation under sola scriptura. But to add a wrinkle, this was accepted doctrine for all of Christianity for 1,600 years - it is difficult to insist that God tried to get Christians to stop this, but couldn't for that long of a time period; especially since it is not condemned in Scripture. So I believe the burden is on you to show that it is against God's will to ask others for prayer.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

Why do you insist that the trinity is not clear in the Bible.
1 John 5:7
" For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
That is very clear! You God the Father, Jesus the Word, and the Holy Ghost. These 3 are 1.
3 in 1. The concept of the trinity is proven by this. The word trinity may not be in the Bible...but the concept is.(we'll discuss more on that later)
However,sticking to the topic, the concept of someone praying to a saint in heaven is not, I repeat not in the Bible.
According to the Bible I read, in the OT, GOD is very SPECIFIC about how to pray and worship Him. Look what happened to Levitivus 10:1. Aaron's son's worshipped in a manner not authorized by God.
Jesus gave specific instructions...all the instructions...complete instructions on how to pray. Anything else is unauthorized.
Is your only excuse and validation the following
"this was accepted doctrine for all of Christianity for 1,600 years"

That's following man's ways. Lets look at the facts.
1. You have yet to show where anyone...Jesus, prophet, or apostle asked a saint in heaven to pray for them. You haven't shown where God authorized a person on earth to seek anyone other than himself in heaven for prayer.
You have not shown where it is clear that prayers where directed to someone other than God.
2. Your rational indicated by your statement is that the doctrine is valid as evidenced by the practice of it for 1,600 years.

So on one hand we have the Bible, God's word, which does not show authorization given to anyone to pray to saints. On the other we have a practice that began approximately 1,600 years ago that is not instructed or authorized by God. Hmmm....could it be that man is wrong? I mean after all history has shown that man is fully flawed. However the Lord left His words so that we may have a guideline...praise Him for it.

"So I believe the burden is on you to show that it is against God's will to ask others for prayer."

Jesus was specific when He instructed us to pray...He said 2 of you on EARTH. He even instructed us how to pray...Our Father...I am sure you know that prayer by heart. He authorized 2 on Earth praying together. He did not authorize one on earth seeking a saint in heaven for prayer.
That is your proof. Now you can correct me if you could find where it is authorized for a saint on earth to seek a saint in heaven. Jay, can you find that in the Bible? Yes or no.

God Bless

Marc,

I would be interested to know what you made of the Jewish axiom of Written Torah and Oral Torah as both equally the Word of Yahweh according to Jews - and so also Jesus - in the 1st Century? Written and Oral Torah, both inspired and divine revelation, is not an axiom clearly stated in the Hebrew Scriptures, yet no NT or OT scholar worth his salt would suggest that 1st Century Jews did not hold to this axiom.

Since the Church ultimately emerged from 1st Century Judaism, it seems only natural that a notion of Scripture (Written Torah) AND Tradition (Oral Torah) would have emrged with it as well - which most scholars think it did.

Jesus, Judaism, and early Christianity were "brought up" within cultures of orality - principally!!! NOT textuality!!

Indeed, even the idea of a written text superceding an oral utterance(s) - which were/are of course, eventually written down - did not happen until Enlightenment, printing press, etc. etc. Luther's understanding of sola scriptura was/is repleat with such Enlightenment sensibilities that would have been foreign to the earliest believers in Jesus Messiah.

Peace.

Jack and Jay,

Stop dodging and changing the subject. Just answer the question if you can please.

God Bless

What is your question?

:-)

Jack and Jay

"My last question...can you find somewhere in scripture where an individual on Earth asks a saint in heaven to pray for them?? "

God Bless

Hey Marc,

I have not the time nor desire to track down a biblical proof-text for the Church’s doctrine on the communion of saints – I will leave that to Jay who is more qualified than I. I trust he knows where to direct your attention.

Nevertheless Marc…

Here is the thing, and there is really no way of getting around it – even by constantly demanding an answer to your question(s).

Your demand that a Church’s doctrine be accompanied by a biblical proof-text is a reflection of your faith tradition’s post-Enlightenment inclination that values a written/printed text over an oral emanation of divine revelation (which, as I said earlier, are nowadays, eventually written down – as they eventually were for Judaism in the Mishnah & Talmuds).

Your faith tradition’s inclination toward the written/printed text alone, is not grounded in the faith and praxis of the earliest Christians, but rather, in the Reformation which rejected the cultural orality of Jesus, the apostles, the early believers in Jesus Messiah, on-and-on – and this in favor of a written/printed text. This cultural phenomenon of Western Civilization is well documented – but is not grounded one iota in the ancient worlds of Jesus, Judaism, and early Christianity.

Catholics today – like Jesus (the Jew) and his disciples and earliest followers (also, Jews), hold to an understanding of divine revelation that is incorporated by written (Scripture) and oral (Tradition) emanations of Divine Revelation. Therefore, whether or not a particular praxis of Roman Catholics today is reflected precisely in the Bible (Scripture) means little if the Church’s teaching office (Tradition) corroborates it.

“Scripture AND Tradition,” not “Scripture Alone” is the basis for the Catholic Church’s understanding of Revelation.

I find this sort of discourse – i.e. apologetics – is more often than not of no use except to reaffirm what each of us personally thinks. I am not naïve enough to think that anything I suggest, nor Jay even, will convince you to change your mind…and vice versa. Such is the true nature of apologetics.

Blessings!

Jack,

Ok, so you can't find where a saint on Earth asked a saint in Heaven to pray for them.
How about you Jay?

God Bless

P.S.

The early church existed when the apostles were spreading the Gospel. How come praying to saints or to Mary not part of their "tradition."??

Marc,

What is your point here? Jesus never said that abortion was wrong. Nor does Scripture say anything on the subject. Yet it is still wrong. The same is true of polygamy.

Your objection to prayer to the saints is fundamentally flawed. We are not trying to convince you that it is necessary. On the contrary, you are trying to convince us that it is wrong. Yet, you would agree that 1) prayer for fellow Christians is good, 2) asking fellow Christians to prayer for you is good, and 3) the saints in heaven are fellow Christians. Assuming that you accept these things, the onus is on you to prove that the saints as fellow Christians are not praying for us and/or that it is wrong for us to ask for their prayers. So Mr. Bible man, start quoting!

In Christ,
Dave

Dave,

You are revisiting a topic that has been discussed.
So I will make this short and simple.
God said do not murder. Abortion is murder. Now if you want to be coy, one can say that shooting someone with a gun is ok because God didn't specify about the use of guns. But when you look at that statement, one can see how ludicrous it is, we know that guns can kill. Murder is murder. The intent of murder is to end a life.
God does not authorize any type of murder..be it guns, knives, suicide or abortion. By the way, in your argument on abortion....I do remember you saying something about the Bible is not clear on when life begins. A point that was quickly disproven.
To summarize...God did not authorize polygamy, He did not authorize any type of murder, and He did not authorize prayers directed to the saints in Heaven.
Jesus however was specific when brethren were to pray. He said TWO ON EARTH. That is being specific. That is what He authorized. Notice that He did not mention 1 on earth and 1 in heaven. Jesus was specific.
Unless you think that it was an oversight on the Lord's part Dave.
Simply put...God did not authorize polygamy, God did not authorize abortion, and God did not authorize prayer from those on Earth to saints in heaven.
Your attempts to divert from the topic and try to give me "the burden of proof" says it all. You are unable to find any example of anyone praying to a saint in heaven in the Bible.

God Bless

Ah yes...blessed apologetics.

What was that you said? I didn't hear you! Nor do I want to hear you.

Only me!

Deficias tempum? Fortasse! Re vera!

Marc,

If you want scriptural references used by many Catholic Apologists, go to www.catholic.com, and look under "practical apologetics." I don't particularly like this cite, though it does attempt to answer your kind of questions more precisely.

That said, the difference in understanding between you and Catholics of what comprises Divine Revelation, is at the heart of this discussion, and frankly leaves me without any real desire to attempt answering your question (with its limitations), since I can rest easy with the LIVE WORD OF THE LIVING GOD via the Scripture AND Tradition.

You see, I have no need of either looking for or providing proof texts (though they are there, see the web site), since Tradition teaches clearly the doctrine of the Communion of Saints.

Peace!

Marc,

If you want scriptural references used by many Catholic Apologists, go to www.catholic.com, and look under "practical apologetics." I don't particularly like this cite, though it does attempt to answer your kind of questions more precisely.

That said, the difference in understanding between you and Catholics of what comprises Divine Revelation, is at the heart of this discussion, and frankly leaves me without any real desire to attempt answering your question (with its limitations), since I can rest easy with the LIVE WORD OF THE LIVING GOD via the Scripture AND Tradition.

You see, I have no need of either looking for or providing proof texts (though they are there, see the web site), since Tradition teaches clearly the doctrine of the Communion of Saints.

Peace!

Marc,

If you want scriptural references used by many Catholic Apologists, go to www.catholic.com, and look under "practical apologetics." I don't particularly like this cite, though it does attempt to answer your kind of questions more precisely.

That said, the difference in understanding between you and Catholics of what comprises Divine Revelation, is at the heart of this discussion, and frankly leaves me without any real desire to attempt answering your question (with its limitations), since I can rest easy with the LIVE WORD OF THE LIVING GOD via the Scripture AND Tradition.

You see, I have no need of either looking for or providing proof texts (though they are there, see the web site), since Tradition teaches clearly the doctrine of the Communion of Saints.

Peace!

Jack,

"You see, I have no need of either looking for or providing proof texts (though they are there, see the web site), since Tradition teaches clearly the doctrine of the Communion of Saints."

So you believe in communion of saints because the Roman Catholic Church teaches and says it is so. That's sola ecclesia my friend.
It's obvious you cannot find in Scripture where a saint on earth asks a saint in heaven to pray for them. Yet somehow you believe that this was tradition of the "early church."
So I am going to assume, that you cannot find any Scripture that shows where a saint on earth asks a saint in Heaven to pray for them. You can't find anyone on earth in the Bible, seeking anyone else but God. If you do find someone seeking someone else but God...let me know if their actions were approved or not.
Your stance that you believe because tradition says so, is my point exactly. I will tell you this much...that tradition is not found in God's word. That tradition was made by man. You should read the Bible more often. You would see warnings in the Bible to not follow traditions of men.

Last time...can you , Jay, or Dave find in the Bible where it is taught that a saint on earth can ask for the prayers of a saint in heaven.
Can you find an example where a saint on earth asked for a saint in heaven on earth to pray for them. Because if it was tradition, then it should be found in the Bible. After all the early church is seen in the Bible. Its that simple, if you can find it, just provide the Scriptures on this post.

God Bless

Marc; “Your stance that you believe because tradition says so, is my point exactly. I will tell you this much...that tradition is not found in God's word. That tradition was made by man. You should read the Bible more often. You would see warnings in the Bible to not follow traditions of men.”

You demonstrate well the rancorous fruits of apologetics.

It is interesting how you neither know me, nor have ever met me, yet you presume to advise that I need to read the Bible more often.

Have a good day.

Jay,

Since this was a discussion between you and myself. Can you find in the Holy Scripture where a saint on earth prays to saint in heaven?
Since this is supposed to be tradition of the church, why doesn't the early church i.e. the apostles...practice communion of saints?

God Bless

Marc,

1. There are no direct examples in Scripture. Only indirect ones as is the case with abortion and even more so with polygamy.

2. Your comment that I was "proven" incorrect on the Biblical abortion issue is very childish. Nobody "proved" anything. And that is really my whole point. Without an authority that can once and for all decide the issue in the here and now, my opinion has just as much legitimacy as yours. You have no claim to superior Biblical interpretation; any Sam, Dick, or Harry holds just as much authority as you or me. And saying that God or the Bible is the ultimate authority is neither impressive nor particularly clever. We all agree on that! The question is how to decipher what God has said. And if it is so obvious, why are there 20,000 different Protestant groups?

3. You have managed to completely avoid my question. Where is prayer to the saints said to be wrong????? You can't just say that because it is not explicitly authorized or practiced, it is wrong. Use of the internet is not specifically authorized, but I don't think it is wrong. You supposedly can point to things in the Bible saying abortion and polygamy are wrong. Where does it say that communicating with Christians that are dead in the flesh but alive in Christ is wrong? And if it is wrong, than why did Christ do it (not through prayer, but through face to face contact)? Please answer; I've given you the courtesy of answering your question!

In Christ,
Dave

Dave,

How is abortion indirect? Isn't abortion murder?
How did GOd make marriage to be? Isn't anything else incorrect?
Jesus said that 2 on earth may gather in His name. Isn't that being specific Dave? It is not authorizing to pray to a saint in Heaven. It is authorizing to pray with a believer on earth.
When Saul had seeked Samuel, you will read in Chronicles
"1 Chronicles 10:13- Saul died because he was unfaithful to the Lord;he did not keep the word of the Lord and even consulted a medium for guidance, and did not inquire of the Lord."

Not only did seek a medium for guidance which was wrong...but instead of going directly to God, Saul went looking for Samuel.
That is clearly showing that the only person to seek is the Lord. But more importantly..God did not authorize praying to saints. Here is a summary
1. Chronicles shows that Saul should not have seeked Samuel, he should have asked the Lord.
2. God did not authorize prayers to saints.
3. Jesus did specify that 2 on earth can come together in his name. But there is nothing about one on earth and one in heaven praying together.
4. It was not taught by the apostles. It was not practiced by the believers in Christ in the Bible.

Nevertheless....it boils down to this. Did God authorize it? The answer is no.

God Bless

Marc,
Do I need to list all of the people who would argue that abortion is not murder? There are many, many of them - in fact many protestant denominations accept abortion in certain cases (e.g. life of the mother, etc.). They would argue that the Bible does not condemn abortion.

Again, Saul was condemned for going through a medium, not for seeking Samuel. As Dave pointed out, Jesus discussed his situation with two of those long dead during the Transfiguration. Even though you dismiss Zechariah as a "prophetic vision" I would argue that this vision doesn't distort reality and may in fact become reality, therefore you can't discount the occurance in this text. And finally you discount the apocrypthal books because Martin Luther didn't like them (specifically because they taught prayer for the dead among other things).

We've proven that the angels are aware of events on earth and take part in our prayer lifes (see Revelation). But you are insisting on a specific note of this in the Bible. Remember, Jesus said that there is much He could not teach us then, but the Holy Spirit would teach over time. There are numerous examples of things hinted at in the text (such as abortion and Sunday worship) that we accept as true. It is silly to say that those who have died are completely removed from God's grace and/or cut off from the church militant on earth. To suggest we can't ask for their prayers is beyond silly - in fact, it's a strong argument as to why personal interpretation of the Bible is incorrect.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

"Do I need to list all of the people who would argue that abortion is not murder? There are many, many of them - in fact many protestant denominations accept abortion in certain cases (e.g. life of the mother, etc.). They would argue that the Bible does not condemn abortion."

It does not matter what man thinks or reasons. The bottom line is what does God have to say about it. God says that He knows us before we are in the womb. That means we have life before conception...and definitely after conception.
God says do not murder. Murder is to end a life. Abortion is the killing of a fetus. That is murder. This is not my own personal interpretation. This is how God plainly put it. If a group of Christians want to be ignorant of this, that is their mistake. But there is not a hidden code or any difficulty in understanding this concept in the Bible. My 15 year old sister can figure that out (which she has.)

"Again, Saul was condemned for going through a medium, not for seeking Samuel"

And yet again I quote
"1 Chronicles 10:13- Saul died because he was unfaithful to the Lord;he did not keep the word of the Lord and even consulted a medium for guidance, AND did not inquire of the Lord."

This passage uses the word AND. That means Saul did 2 things wrong. Unless you have a different meaning for the word AND. The 2 things Saul did wrong was 1. Going to the medium AND 2. Not seeking the Lord...instead he sought Samuel.

"Even though you dismiss Zechariah as a "prophetic vision" I would argue that this vision doesn't distort reality and may in fact become reality, therefore you can't discount the occurance in this text."

The angel in this vision sent a message. There was no one praying to the angel in the vision. How do you use this for support for praying to saints? Did anyone pray to the angel?

"And finally you discount the apocrypthal books because Martin Luther didn't like them (specifically because they taught prayer for the dead among other things)."

Yes I do discount them as inspired, but not simply because Martin Luther discounted. By the way, St. Jerome discounted and other "early church fathers" discounted them as well. We can discuss the apocrypha again at another time...but let us not diverge. Second, given the Apocrypha, you have yet to even show in the Apocrypha where someone prayed to saint in heaven. You attempted to use Tobit as an example, but in chapter 3 we see who Tobit prayed to. It most certainly was not the angel.
"It is silly to say that those who have died are completely removed from God's grace and/or cut off from the church militant on earth. To suggest we can't ask for their prayers is beyond silly - in fact, it's a strong argument as to why personal interpretation of the Bible is incorrect."

To suggest something unauthorized by God as valid is silly. Again, why didn't Jesus specify that you could seek a saint in Heaven for prayer when instructing us to pray together ON EARTH?
Why didn't the apostles teach this? Not once do you see the Apostles discuss praying to a saint in Heaven.
Why is that?
You would make a case if Jesus had not specified two on earth...but Jesus did specify two on earth. Anything other than that is not valid simply because it is not authorized.
To say that Jesus also meant we could pray to saints in heaven is to put words in the Lord's mouth. He never said it or gave permission to do such. Look again to Leviticus 10:1...unauthorized worship.
I don't care what any church does, even the church I go to...if it doesn't agree with the Scriptures...it is incorrect.
Plain and simple. Praying to saints...is unauthorized. Unless of course you can show where God, Jesus, or the apostles taught that one pray to a saint.
However you cannot.

God Bless

This line of dialogue is fascinating. Marc claims that the Bible is clear on its face. Two billion Christians in the world, 1.25 billion Catholic or Orthodox. The remainder is .75 billion Protestants or other post-Protestant sects numbering around 20,000 different groups. How is it that the Protestant can make a case for the clarity of Scripture? If that is the case, which of the 20,000 groups is getting it right (i.e. figured out the true meaning of the clear Bible)? And why, if the Bible is so clear, are the other 19,999 groups getting it wrong? It just doesn't make any sense. Beyond that, what does Marc offer to show that he is right except for the same text that every one of the other 19,999 groups offers to show their position is right as well? Am I making sense here?

In Christ,
Dave

"However, the Bible does not teach that the fetus or embryo is a human life. Rather, the Church teaches me this fact and I accept the Church's authority do so. "

This is a post from Dave under Writings of the Perpetual Virgin on March 22 at 10:11 PM

"How about Ecc 11:5

"As you do not know the path of the wind, or how the body is formed in a mother's womb, so you cannot understand the work of God, the Maker of all things"

Body formed in a mother's womb, hmmm....sounds like what scientists would call a fetus.
Yet it is somehow not clear that fetus is life. Even though it is God's work when forming the body in the womb...it is not clear that the fetus is life. Why is this so?

Lets look at the dialogue shall we. Dave and Jay cannot show where it is authorized in Scripture to pray to saints. So what do they do? They attempt to discredit the clarity of Scripture. They do so by saying things like "Well abortion is not clearly in the Bible" or "The trinity is not clearly in the Bible" or "church on Sunday is not clearly in the Bible"
They will say that they are not discrediting the clarity word of God, but they are. All of a sudden Scripture is not clear enough for any man. All of a sudden Scripture is not clear on certain topics.
The divergence of these topics is simply to avoid the fact that God did not AUTHORIZE prayers to saints.
Did God condemn murder...yes he did. Are euthanasia and abortion forms of murder? Yes they are.
Did God say in His word, let no man judge because of a sabbath day? Yes he did, unless you believe Paul was not inspired by God to write.
1 John 5:7
" For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
Does this Scripture not show the concept of the trinity. Trinity means 3 in 1. Is this really not clear in the Scriptures?
One can look to the Scriptures and see that these issues are present in Scripture with clarity. If Jay and Dave wish to engage in a debate on these issues, we can...all I will need to do is look to Scripture. My case is not hard to show...all I need are the Scriptures.
At least in the case of abortion, trinity and sabbath days, Scripture is clear.
The truth is the following...God gives no authorization for praying to saints. Jesus never taught prayers to saints. Jesus didn't seek Moses with prayer. You can assume that Jesus did ask Moses to pray, but that is just an assumption. The apostles never taught prayers to saints. No one ever practiced prayers to saints in the Bible. No one ever talked about Mary the way Rome talks about her.
The bottom line, there is no scriptural evidence that supports praying to saints.
However there is proof that seeking someone other than God is wrong.

"And yet again I quote(again)
"1 Chronicles 10:13- Saul died because he was unfaithful to the Lord;he did not keep the word of the Lord and even consulted a medium for guidance, AND did not inquire of the Lord."

This passage uses the word AND. That means Saul did 2 things wrong. Unless you have a different meaning for the word AND. The 2 things Saul did wrong was 1. Going to the medium AND 2. Not seeking the Lord...instead he sought Samuel. "

Yet even this, according to Dave and Jay is hard to understand.

God Bless

Marc,
The point is not discrediting Scripture. The point is that not everything that is good or true is directly stated in Scripture. How is this difficult to understand? So we are showing how other truths you accept are not clearly shown in Scripture . . . this isn't brain surgery.

Also, ultimately this comes down to interpretation. Dave and I are arguing from the interpretation that has been handed down through the centuries, you are arguing from your own personal interpretation and without much consistency. The Bible plainly states some things you don't accept and doesn't state some you do. Which will you agree to? It seems to depend on the viewpoint you're interested in taking on the issue.

My favorite line from your rant above is "No one ever talked about Mary the way Rome talks about her." If I can show that they did, would that change your mind? Or is your mind decided anyway? Are you seeking truth or not?

So the question is, do you follow everything in Scripture? Or just what you like? Must everything be plainly stated in Scripture to be believed? (Note that we've shown that through study you can reach the realization that asking Saints for help is rational). Where do you stand?

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

All that ranting...and not one quote from Scripture to prove your point.

"My favorite line from your rant above is "No one ever talked about Mary the way Rome talks about her." If I can show that they did, would that change your mind?"

I have been asking all along to show where in the Bible is it taught to pray to Mary or to saints. Where is her BODILY assumption taught in Scripture? Where is her BODILY assumption even prophecied in Scripture.
You have yet to show anything in Scripture that validates this.

"Must everything be plainly stated in Scripture to be believed?"
Not verbatim...but the concepts are there.
For example, the issue of the trinity which you bought up as an example of something not being clearly taught in the Bible.

"I believe this is implicit in Scripture just as the Trinity is, although not stated as clearly as you would like"-Jay

The 'word' "trinity may not be in the Bible...but the concept of the trinity is CLEARLY in the Bible. The trinity symbolizes 3 in 1. So I quote scripture to prove this point
"1 John 5:7
" For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
Jay, do you still feel that this passage alone doesn't CLEARLY show the concept of the trinity??

I addressed this in my previous post as with other issues as well...I would like to see you answer each counterpoint that I made.

Now, the concept of the error in seeking someone else but the Lord is clearly in the Bible.

"And yet again I quote(again for the umpteenth time)
"1 Chronicles 10:13- Saul died because he was unfaithful to the Lord;he did not keep the word of the Lord and even consulted a medium for guidance, AND did not inquire of the Lord."

This passage uses the word AND. That means Saul did 2 things wrong. Unless you have a different meaning for the word AND. The 2 things Saul did wrong was 1. Going to the medium AND 2. Not seeking the Lord...instead he sought Samuel. "
Despite this fact...you are comfortable in saying
"(Note that we've shown that through study you can reach the realization that asking Saints for help is rational)."

Yes, you can rationalize..but that doesn't make it right. Once again, look at the son's of Aaron. They were part of the priesthood. They rationalized that they could present their fire offering. The Lord did accept fire offerings...but they died. Why? Because, it was UNAUTHORIZED. God is very specific when it comes time to worship.
Despite your claim that you have shown that is OK to pray to saints, you have not been able to show where it was authorized by God to do so. You have not shown any of the apostles teaching or practicing prayers to saints. Please expain this.

God Bless

Marc,

I have to side out with Jay on this one. You still don't answer his question. My favorite line from your rant is the one about the word "trinity" not being in the Bible but the concept being clear. This is true of course, and that is why we believe in the Trinity. However, on the other hand, the same argument can be applied to many things that you don't accept such as Purgatory, the role of the Pope, the special place Mary holds, prayer to the saints, ect. Jay, Joe and Dave have written several articles on each of these showing how the concept of each is obviously in the Bible, yet you don't follow / believe any of those doctrines. Have you read Dave's article on Saint Peter. The word "Pope" is never in the Bible but the concept is clearly there and Dave states 30 or so verses from scripture that show it. You believe in the Trinity but do not follow the Pope despite the fact that both concepts are clearly laid out in the Bible. This gets to the heart of the problem with Protestant philosophy. You are practicing "shopping cart religion" by picking out things you like from Scripture while leaving the ones you don't on the shelves. You either have to take everything that Scripture tells you or nothing, the problem with Protestantism is that it is in between.

Tom

Stop diverging, we will address those topics at another time. Why can you not show one instance where were it was practiced to pray to saints by the early church(the church in the Bible). Why can you not find the CONCEPT of praying to saints being taught?
Why? It has almost been a week and still no answer.

God Bless

Marc,

Just to recap in case you missed it earlier. There is Biblical proof for it.

The Bible directs us to invoke those in heaven and ask them to pray with us. Thus in Psalms 103, we pray, "Bless the Lord, O you his angels, you mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word! Bless the Lord, all his hosts, his ministers that do his will!" (Ps. 103:20-21). And in Psalms 148 we pray, "Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord from the heavens, praise him in the heights! Praise him, all his angels, praise him, all his host!" (Ps. 148:1-2).

Not only do those in heaven pray with us, they also pray for us. In the book of Revelation, we read: "[An] angel came and stood at the altar [in heaven] with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God" (Rev. 8:3-4).

And those in heaven who offer to God our prayers aren’t just angels, but humans as well. John sees that "the twenty-four elders [the leaders of the people of God in heaven] fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints" (Rev. 5:8). The simple fact is, as this passage shows: The saints in heaven offer to God the prayers of the saints on earth.
- Taken from an article on the Catholic Answers website

How do you know that the Bible is a reliable source of truth? How do you know that it is divinely inspired?

Remember, if you attempt to answer this by quoting the Bible that is a self-confirming argument and therefore a false argument.

In Christ,
Joe

Joe,

Your reference to Psalms is not a prayer to angels or saints. The author of the prayer is simply instructing all things to praise God. Have you not read Psalms 150:6?
Let everything that has breath praise the LORD.

The praises are nowhere near directed toward the angels, saints, or anything other than the Lord. In Psalm 148 the author instructs the sun, moon, skies to also praise the Lord.
If you interpret the Psalms you made reference to as instructions to pray to saints and angels, then you must pray to the sun, moon, skies and anything that has breath. However...that is not the case now, is it?
Nevertheless...you picked a Psalm that does not instruct prayer to a saint or angel. Commanding ALL THINGS to praise the Lord is not remotely the same as praying to a saint.

As for your last question...it is a pointless one. But I'll be quick...
I like you considered historical facts and any archeological facts. I of course read the Bible and accepted that to be true. I read on another post, that you did the same. From this point is where we differ. You believed the Bible to support the RCC's tradition and history...I believed otherwise. If you want to discuss historical facts and archeology, we can do that.
Does Scripture testify to being inspired? Yes they do. But that is not the point. Why do you believe in the bodily assumption of Mary? It's not in the Bible. You must believe it to be so because the RCC taught it. You believe and trust so much in the RCC because you read Scripture and believed that this was the church Christ entrusted. You chose to believe Scripture to be inspired because an analysis you made.
Here are some reasons that I believe Scripture to be inspired.
1. The preservation of Scripture. That it is able to stand the test of time. The evidence that shows that numerous copies were made yet the integrity maintained is something only God could do.
2. Yes, the authors do write about God being their inspiration.
3. Analysis of the historical facts leads me to believe that the Bible that I read is correct.

Most important...when I read the Bible and I pray, then do I know for certain that this is the Word of God. I hate to dissappoint you, but the Scriptures just speaks to the hearts of men who adore the Lord.

Now, please show me a passage where it is shown that someone asks a saint or angel in heaven for prayer. If you believe that the Psalm you pointed out is proof...then I must ask...do you pray to or with the dolphins, stars, hail, snow, birds...etc.?
Do you praise all of that as well? The context of the Psalms you point out is that all are to praise the Lord because He is worthy.
So once again, show me where in the Bible is it AUTHORIZED to pray to saints or angels?
Show me where Christ taught to pray to angels or saints in Heaven. Show me where the apostles taught the early church to pray to saints or angels. Why is the concept of praying to saints not taught by the early church...the church that is present in Scripture. If it was important and beneficial...it should have been taught.
Why not? Since I answered your question...please answer this question.

God Bless

Marc,

Not sure why you are applying Psalm 150:6 here...angels don't have bodies therefore they don't actually "breath". What the Psalms to specifically say is that there is a dialogue between the angels in heaven and us, otherwise how could we ask them to praise God?

You, like others, misrepresent what I've said. I said that I believe that Bible is true and divinely inspired only because the Church tells me so. The entire basis of my argument rests on this. Without the Church there would be no Bible...it is that simple and that true. And you can't prove it otherwise for it is what historically happened.

In reference to your three points:
1) The Koran is an old book which claims to be divinely inspired and true, do you accept that as well?
2) With the exception of St. John in Revelation where do the other New Testament writers claim to be "divinely inspired"?
3) What historical facts led you to this belief?

In Christ,
Joe

Joe,

I will work backwards....
"2) With the exception of St. John in Revelation where do the other New Testament writers claim to be "divinely inspired"?
3) What historical facts led you to this belief?"

I have read the dialogue between you and Jeff. If I answer, my answer will pretty much be a rehash of what Jeff has posted. Why waste time...yanno:)

"1) The Koran is an old book which claims to be divinely inspired and true, do you accept that as well?"

No...for many reasons. I shall summarize...history doesn't support the validity of the Koran. Second, the Koran negates itself when it instruct others to follow the Bible. If they are to follow the Bible..they are to accept Christ as Lord and Savior and not just a prophet.

"Not sure why you are applying Psalm 150:6 here...angels don't have bodies therefore they don't actually "breath". What the Psalms to specifically say is that there is a dialogue between the angels in heaven and us, otherwise how could we ask them to praise God?"

Ok, then explain Psalms 148. The sun and the moon do not have breath. What about hail and snow? Do they have breath? I don't read a dialogue between the author and angels or saints. I don't read a dialogue between the author and the sun, rain or hail stone either. Does the author have a dialogue with the sun, hail, moon, water, stars, dolphins, sharks, etc.???

"I believe that Bible is true and divinely inspired only because the Church tells me so. The entire basis of my argument rests on this. Without the Church there would be no Bible...it is that simple and that true. And you can't prove it otherwise for it is what historically happened."

The early church in the Bible did write and these writings were preserved. Yes men, like St. Jerome aided in preserving of Scripture. I never denied that fact. I have read the writings of the early church fathers and have read the Bible and arrived at the conclusion that what I read is inspired. And from this inspired reading, I have read that it is to be used as a measuring stick for church conduct. We can talk about any topic if you would like, just pick one topic at a time as to not diverge. However, back to this topic...you have still yet to show in Scripture where we are instructed to pray to saints or angels. Why was this concept not taught by the apostles to the early church that we see in Scripture? Why not?

God Bless

Simple answer because the very idea of salvation was not even possible until Jesus Christ came to earth, died for our sins, and then rose from the dead. It was only in light of this event that the reality of the faithful receiving the great reward of eternal life was even imaginable. This development of understanding, so to speak, of what the ramifications were of Christ's eternal act took time to fully develop. Just look at Acts. It was late in the books of Acts before the Church even acknowledged that circumcision was no longer necessary. Look at the Early Fathers, it wasn't until approximately 325 A.D. that the Church finally declared that it was necessary for all believers to believe in the truth of Trinity as defined by the Church, and least we forget, it wasn't until approximately 392 A.D. before the Church compiled the canon of Sacred Scripture, declaring it to be divinely inspired, and therefore mandatory for believers to accept and believe to be true. The early Christians didn't pick up a book and say "well let me see what it is I'm suppose to believe". They were told what would be believed by the Church. Plain and simple.

Do plants, animals, sun, moon, etc. have the ability to praise God? If so, how?

By the way the Koran instructs Muslims to accept it first and foremost, then the Bible. For a Muslim the Koran authoritatively interprets the Bible.

Again, the argument that the Bible is true because "I" have read it, looked into its historical existence, and accepted it as true is not the same as the Catholic position that we know the Bible to be true because the Church tells us it is. The "I" in your argument makes it subjective to you, that is to say that its truthfulness is tied to your accepting it as such. Catholics believe that it is true because the Church, founded by Christ, says it is true and we know that Christ gave that Church authority to bind and loose. He did not order the apostles to write. Yes, as Catholics, we read Sacred Scripture, believe it to be the Word of God, in fact within the Mass the Liturgy of the Word is an equally important part with the Liturgy of the Eucharist. Yet we also understand and accept the reality that in truth the Church must proceed the written word, just as God's covenants with Abraham all the way down to Moses did proceed the Torah and the Law, and the prophets' preaching came before their actual writings. As we have pointed out repeatedly, the Jews are not simply a people of the "written word" alone.

In Christ,
Joe

Joe,

"Do plants, animals, sun, moon, etc. have the ability to praise God? If so, how?"

You miss the whole context of the Psalm. Even Catholic apologists such as Peter Madrid and Gary Michuka agree that the context of this Psalm is to show that the Lord is to be praised. In their defense over prayers to saints, they do not even use this passage to assume a dialogue between man and angels and saints. All things are made for God's pleasure...that is what the Psalmist is relaying.

"Simple answer because the very idea of salvation was not even possible until Jesus Christ came to earth, died for our sins, and then rose from the dead. It was only in light of this event that the reality of the faithful receiving the great reward of eternal life was even imaginable. This development of understanding, so to speak, of what the ramifications were of Christ's eternal act took time to fully develop. Just look at Acts. It was late in the books of Acts before the Church even acknowledged that circumcision was no longer necessary."

What about Stephen...he was a believer and a martyr. Why not instruct praises to Stephen? Is your final answer going to be..."simple, it took time to develop"

We will get into a discussion about Sola Scriptura at a later time. But for now, I feel that my point has been proven. You cannot logically show where it is authorized to pray to saints or angels. Your attempt to discredit Scripture as authoritative is done so that you may say "Even though it is not written, the Church teaches it, so it must be so" That is Sola Ecclesia.
I will get back to you on Sola Scriptura. For now, just think about "do not go beyond what is written."

God Bless

Marc,

First, you didn't answer my question. There is a reason why I asked it, so please just answer it.

Second, this issue of asking saints in heaven to intercede for us really comes down to the fact that Protestants have a finite understanding of the Mystical Body of Christ, whereas the Catholic Church's understanding is infinite. One does not cease to be a member of the Body of Christ just because they die, in fact upon death they are incorporated fully into that Mystical Body, a state that we have yet to experience. To quote from a series known as the Radio Replies:

The Caller's Question:
Why is it necessary to pray to the Virgin Mary or the saints? There is but one Mediator, Christ Jesus, from whom we may obtain forgiveness and life everlasting.
The Priest's Response:
If a mother prays for a wayward son, she is mediating on behalf of that son. And if God hears her prayers, that does not detract from the mediation of Christ. And as she can pray for her son, the Mother of Christ and the saints can pray for us. And when they do, it is Jesus mediating for us, for it is Jesus in them Who is doing so. You lack understanding of Christian doctrine. Christians, whether in heaven or on earth, are the members of Christ. He identifies Himself with them. When Saul persecuted the Christians, Jesus said to him, "Why persecutest thou Me?" And if the sufferings of the saints are His sufferings; the intercession of the saints is another form of His intercession. We Catholics believe in the Communion of saints; the common union of all saints in Christ. Protestants say that they believe in the Communion of Saints, but sedulously exclude all union wi