Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
I don't. How does this apply to intcessory prayer? ho
It does. Why pray to anyone except Jesus Christ?
Praying to a dead person is not intercessory prayer.
"I, for one, am very surprised that there have not been more "free-will" Protestants chiming in. That would make it more of a "Cage Match!" :)"
Ha! Exactly! :-)
"...when you decided to end the post with a polemical and false characterization of the Reformation followed by a false dilemma question..."
As to polemics, I thought that you enjoyed that sort of thing. Most guys who use the word "Romish" on a regular basis tend to be signaling that they enjoy polemics. Dittor for anyone who states categorically that Orthodox are Origenists. I certainly didn't mean to hurt anyone's feelings.
I'm more than happy to discuss the details of exactly what you believe happened with the deposit of the faith between the death of the last Apostle and the onset of the Reformation. If what I wrote is a mischaracterization, then help me frame it in a way you would agree with. I think you know that I believe in the importance of establishing the other guy's position in a way that they would agree with before proceeding with meaningful discussion.
"Later, hoping that might have changed, I revisited the question. So no, I don't see any need for you to revisit the issue."
Hm. I'm not sure I understand whether you want to revisit the issue or not. I'm still here, and I think I'm fairly easy to get along with.
Oh, ok. I see how you are. Hold that thought a minute.
"Mary knew the sign of the messiah......."
And how exactly do you know this?
"Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."
Well, unfortunately for you, this passage only proves that Isaiah knew the sign of the messiah. So, unless you can meet your own burden of proof, a scriptural passage stating explicitly that Mary knew the sign, I'll take it your assertion is based on nothing but speculation.
Fair is fair, FC. If you are going to insist on a particular standard, the least you can do is hold yourself to it.
Maybe our confusion here is based on the use of the word "pray."
I use it, as it is also used in scripture, to mean "ask."
So if I say, "I pray you, Full Court, ask God to help me, a poor sinner," I'm asking for you to pray to God on my behalf.
This is intercessory prayer.
So we can see how confusion would occur, I'm praying to you.
A parallel with saints would be Hail Mary in the line "pray for us sinners.."
So in both cases I'm praying, asking, for someone to pray for me. And if intercessory prayer is ok for you (correct me if I'm wrong), this should clear that part up.
Which still leaves what I pointed to earlier about the Communion of Saints. I think we must still have some difference of belief about the saints in heaven. Which is why I ask again: Do you believe the saints in heaven are part of the Body of Christ?
I think maybe in this aspect we'll find where our true difference in belief lie.
thanks for your reply..
Below is the beginning of the Litany of the Saints. This is the ultimate "prayer to the saints" so it can well serve as an example. I think you will see in its form the point in my previous post to you.
Lord, have mercy on us. Lord, have mercy on us.
Christ, have mercy on us. Christ, have mercy on us.
Lord, have mercy on us.Lord, have mercy on us.
Christ, hear us. Christ, graciously hear us.
God, the Father of heaven, have mercy on us.
God the Son, Redeemer of the world, have mercy on us.
God the Holy Spirit, have mercy on us.
Holy Trinity, one God, have mercy on us.
Holy Mary, pray for us.
Holy Mother of God, pray for us.
Holy Virgin of virgins, pray for us.
St. Michael, pray for us.
St. Gabriel, pray for us.
St. Raphael, pray for us.
All you Holy Angels and Archangels, pray for us.
St. John the Baptist, pray for us.
St. Joseph, pray for us.
St. Peter, pray for us.
St. Paul, pray for us.
St. Andrew, pray for us.
St. James, pray for us.
St. John, pray for us.
St. Thomas, pray for us.…
Free will is about man's will, not the intellect. God's doctrines do not concern man's DECISION to choose right or wrong, but what IS right or wrong.
I'm not sure I understand the distinction you are drawing. Are you saying that, in this case, man's intellect is dominated to prevent error, but that leaves man's free will completely intact?
Can we agree that God wrote the Bible through men and their own latent abilities and knowledge?
I think so. But you raise an interesting point. Could the Apostles have written things that were at least "semi-new" even to them? Paul seemed to be responding to questions and correcting error, so I wonder if "new" ways of dealing with issues came out in his writings for the first time (through God's inspiration, i.e. Paul had never thought of it like "that" before). I don't know why not.
There was no "Protestant" themes [in the early days of Christianity], that is my point!!! ... But we don't find any sort of concept of what would LATER be called Protestantism. This is telling, to me, that the Protestant pillars were innovations, never thought of before.
How can that be if we Protestants today approve of some of what you would call Augustine's error?
Secondly, the "oral" tradition DID get written down - by the Church Fathers or the Liturgy that we celebrate. It is not a 2000 year old telephone game.
OK, I had this big argument that I was going to make, but then I realized that you think the Bible itself is infallible for EXACTLY the same reason that you think the writings of the Church Fathers are infallible. OTOH, MY argument for the Bible's infallibility could never apply to the writings of Church Fathers because everyone agrees that "some number" of them were in error.
FK, this is something that ONLY the Spirit can enable us to comprehend. It is not something that can be explained and understood with the man of the flesh: ...
So anyone who disagrees with the Catholic interpretation on this is a "man of the flesh"? Wouldn't that mean that all of the rest of us are unregenerate and unjustified? How could this be when you recognize our baptisms? Perhaps your answer will be that when we were baptized we were fine, but then we grew up to be Protestants, which is a mortal sin? :)
IF a person can ONLY do one thing, HOW is he responsible for not doing the other? Cannot a man rightly ask God "What do you expect? You FORCED me to choose evil! I cannot choose good! How can you then judge me, if I do what I was made to do?" Ask yourself honestly these questions - would God be righteous if man CANNOT but do one thing - sin - but is COMMANDED to do good that HE cannot do?
If we take the Fall as the starting point, then at that moment, all mankind was forever doomed, right? I think we can agree on that. Therefore, if God did nothing else, and just sat back and watched, then all humans would wind up in hell. Would God be just in doing this? I suspect you would say "No", and I would say "Yes". What does God owe us? I don't think a thing at this point.
So, if God doesn't owe anyone salvation, then why is He responsible for those who are lost if He chooses to save some? No man ever has a right to say "What did you expect?" God would say "Where were you when I ..."
I remember that you said, in effect, that God does have a duty to offer salvation to all if He expressed His wish that all be saved. I pointed out that this was an undecreed wish. God does, however, make some decreed wishes (promises) about His elect, does He not? I do believe that God has to come through on those, and my ASSURANCE is that He will do just that.
Yes, God is righteous when He chooses not to sufficiently grace certain people to be able to accept Him. The questions that you posit above such as "How can [God] then judge me, if I do what I was made to do?" are under the assumption that there are two sides to this "court case". There are not, there is only one side, God's. The accused have no "rights" of their own on Judgment Day, God gives rights to those whom He will. There is absolutely no room at all for any sense of human "fairness". God is far more "fair" than we could possibly imagine! :)
FK: "If so, then the Bible is subject to error. Or, did the writers just "choose" to be perfect?"
Hardly. You are forgetting God's foreknowledge and His ability to instill within a particular man the proper knowledge and ability to present HIS - GOD'S - inerrant word, whether it be in parable, allegory, novel, narrative, history, myth, or whatever literal genre He decides to present.
Is this an example of what you said above, about the separation of man's will and intellect? I don't understand how God-infused (specific) intellect can trump man's free will, and yet it is still free. If God had infused an allegory into Matthew's head about a certain issue, could Matthew have used his free will to write it literally? You appear to say "No". So where is the free will to reject God's grace?
Islam takes a literal interpretation to EVERY WORD of the Koran because God Himself has supposedly SAID it, not through a medium, like in the Judeo-Christian tradition...
OK, and I have tried to say that I do not believe for a moment that every word in the Bible is intended to be taken literally. But I do believe that lots of them were. :)
Do we continue Paul's "law" of women not speaking in Church or having their heads covered?
Well, if I was the pastor of my own church, I certainly wouldn't have those rules, BUT, if some other Christian church wanted to observe them, I would not think less of them. Women would either show up or they wouldn't.
It is THIS teaching that the Church looks back upon, not the whims of Catholics TODAY!
Thank you for the background on the contraceptive issue. And, when you speak of "the Church" leading the hierarchy, which Church is it? You admit, and I agree, that the majority of any laity of a church might change their collective views on important issues over time. So what is it that is leading the hierarchy? I read what you said about the "sense of the faithful" being across time, but how can it be said to "lead" the hierarchy if it never means anything specific?
To God?
If it is God, then Scripture tells us there is only one mediator between ourselves and God -- Jesus Christ.
To pray to anyone other than the Savior who is solely responsible for your salvation is superfluous, and hedges dangerously toward giving to dead creatures the glory that is due the Creator alone.
For the LORD thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God." -- Deuteronomy 4:23-24"Take heed unto yourselves, lest ye `forget the covenant of the LORD your God, which he made with you, and make you a graven image, or the likeness of any thing, which the LORD thy God hath forbidden thee.
When Christ instructed his followers to pray, He was specific. He didn't say "Our saints, which art in heaven, hallowed be thy many names..."
Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him." -- Matthew 6:7-8"But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
Yes.
If it is God, then Scripture tells us there is only one mediator between ourselves and God -- Jesus Christ.
Not a problem here. Is your problem concerning intecessory prayer that they are "dead"? Again. I think this is the question: What is the Communion of Saints? Are the Saints in heaven part of the body of Christ.
You still have not clearly answered this question. I think it is at the core of our different faiths.
You would not have a problem asking saints on earth to pray for you, but saints in heaven is a problem. So clearly, I think, this is where we disagree. yes?
No, we do not agree on any such naive notion. God is not waiting for His plan to be verified by history (or future for that matter). His plan has been fulfilled from all eternity. He knows all the events that will take place. Whether they are pre-programmed responses or foreknown acts of our free will, or a combination thereof, makes no difference, because one way or another, His plan will be fulfilled in time relative to us, no matter which view we believe is correct. In your world, man is a pre-programmed robot; in ours, he is a rational being capable of virtue — if he cleaves to God, because He made us such.
As for His plan, besides Moses, Abraham, Adam and Eve, He also made Buddha, Muslims, Eskimos, and Tasmanian tribes, all of whom have nothing to do with biblical events. We are also surrounded by planets and stars, and billions of galaxies, and none of us has any clue what does that have to do with God's plan for the Creation.
You may object that man has the ooze of divine free will and that man's free will can frustrate God's plan. We who believe in the sovereignty of God object to any notion that man can frustrate God's plan
Well, if man is created to be a rational creature, he would posses "the ooze" of free will by God's grace no doubt, thus separating him from the beasts (over whom God gave us dominion), who can make decisions only by necessity.
We who believe in the sovereignty of God object to any notion that man can frustrate God's plan
On that we do agree, but probably for different reasons. :)
There's nothing boring on this thread concerning that issue. :) As far as I know, all of the principle Protestant posters (a lot of alliteration from aspiring anchors... :) hold to a believer's baptism.
They are not in hell. They have been rescued by Christ and welcome Adam and Eve, who are being rescued. The hell is represented by the hole in the ground.
Thank you for the image, and I don't think that can be the one I'm thinking of because it looks new to me. :) I have two images in my head that I think Kolo showed me. One is of a great ladder, and I thought it showed Adam and Eve being rescued from hell (but it could have been hades).
The other one, which is the one I was really thinking of, was the one that has Jesus smashing open a box containing (death?) Jesus is helping by hand both Adam and Eve out of tombs, and behind them all are six "heavyweights" in scripture, including Apostles, and OT righteous. I think this is when we were talking about "trampling down death by death". My point (really to Kosta) is that in this whole "continuity" discussion that's been going on concerning OT and NT, what does it say if there are OT righteous and NT Apostles standing side by side in an icon like this?
And, if it turns out that I am mixing and matching elements of different icons I have seen, then please feel free to take all proper amusement at my expense. :)
I am not up to speed on the Coptic-Catholic discussions regarding monothelitism, but I had heard that much of the problem was over misunderstanding of definitions, rather than an outright heresy, a la Arianism. I'd have to do more research on that one, as I don't really know where the Coptics stand viz a viz the Catholic or the Orthodox communions.
It is incorrect to interpret current Eastern Orthodox non-communion with the Bishop of Rome as non-recognition of the office. We do not share communion because the Apostolic Faith has two different interpretations and beliefs on several key issues that have not yet been resolved and will require an Ecumenical Council to do so, papal jurisdictional issues notwithstanding.
Well said. I think it is only a matter of time before we have another Ecumenical Council to attempt resolution on the issues of the filioque and exactly the Petrine office in regards to the Church catholic (small "c").
Regards
May I ask for a little more explanation on this? I thought that miracles had to be proved and attributed as occurring during life on earth to qualify for Sainthood. How is it proved and attributed that miracles are accomplished after a person's death?
What does "Apostle" mean? "One who is sent". The priests are apostles in that definition of the word. They have been sent by the original 12 (and Paul) to continue the work of Christ's Church on earth. Christ did not establish a Church that would last only until the original Apostles that He walked the earth with died. He gave the Church the power to heal men of sin - and He intended for the Church to continue this ministry until the end of time.
Regards
You should read the Bible every once in a while, Harley.
James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship: that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision. Galatians 2:9
Perhaps you should have clarified which Bible you meant, and in what context. Here's what mine says IN context:
Gal. 2: 6-9 : 6 As for those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance—those men added nothing to my message. 7 On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews. 8 For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9 James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews. (emphasis added)
It seems pretty clear to me that the James, Peter and John in verse 9 are the same people Paul is talking about in verse 6, wouldn't you agree? Is Paul not being CRYSTAL clear that he got his authority in the exact same way that Peter got his? If you interpret verse 9 to be a laying on of hands, then the entire passage is complete gibberish and meaningless. Your version also does not include the bolded part. The Apostles recognized the grace that Paul had, they did not grant it.
I am saying that there is a difference between the will and the intellect. The will is the ability to choose. The intellect is the ability to know something. Certainly, the two are interrelated. In both cases, God does not override man's knowledge or his will - we see this in the case of the Bible's knowledge of scientific theories, for example. In the case of dogma, though, God has promised to protect it from error - so that future generations could come to know the truth through His Church. Thus, when God forms the intellect, He is not tampering with the will. Man's intellect is formed by his senses, those men who teach him. Certainly, God has Divine Providence, and can ensure that men are taught correctly to maintain the Church as the pillar and foundation of the truth. Now how does this effect a man's free will decisions?
Paul seemed to be responding to questions and correcting error, so I wonder if "new" ways of dealing with issues came out in his writings for the first time
I can agree with a development in thought through Paul's life. Looking at Paul's earlier writings and comparing them to later ones, I see a logical development - they are not identical. Certainly, the Spirit was working in Paul gradually as Paul meditated on the mysteries of the faith. I don't think that the Apostles knew everything to know about God on day one, but was a gradual process. Case in point - the entrance of the Gentiles into the Church...
How can that be if we Protestants today approve of some of what you would call Augustine's error?
We believe that Calvinists misunderstand St. Augustine's writings, taking them out of context. I have posted over and over again the many times that St. Augustine's writings contradict the supposed idea that he believed man has no free will or man cannot choose good or man that man is totally corrupt. St. Augustine was arguing against one extreme, Pelagianism, and often used language in the other direction that Calvin took as approval for his own personal preconceived notion that man is totally corrupt. But reading St. Augustine outside of polemic language, one finds he was NOT a "proto-Protestant". You would be quite surprised to see how Roman Catholic he really was...
I realized that you think the Bible itself is infallible for EXACTLY the same reason that you think the writings of the Church Fathers are infallible
That's not true. Individual Church Fathers can be wrong about a particular doctrine - individual verses in the Bible can NEVER be wrong, as every word is inerrant. When the mind of the Church says that something is an Apostolic teaching, though, what reason will you give me that they are lying on this issue, but they are not lying on what IS Scriptures? Indeed, you rely on the Church to tell us the Table of Contents of Scriptures.
So anyone who disagrees with the Catholic interpretation on this is a "man of the flesh"? Wouldn't that mean that all of the rest of us are unregenerate and unjustified? How could this be when you recognize our baptisms? Perhaps your answer will be that when we were baptized we were fine, but then we grew up to be Protestants, which is a mortal sin? :)
Whew! Where is this going? No, the "rest" of you are not unregenerate. I cannot say anything about you being justified or not, we've had this discussion before. I don't know if you are righteous in God's eyes or not. Growing up as a Protestant is not a mortal sin in any sense of the word. Remember all of that talk about 2000 posts ago about being "invincibly ignorant"? A Protestant of good will is not condemned to hell BECAUSE he is Protestant - in reality, he may be more "Catholic" and just not know it. To the degree that you believe in the Nicean Creed, the Catholic Creed, you ARE Catholic! Because you are not in substantial union with Christ's Church does not automatically condemn you. Actually, even Muslims and Jews may have some tenuous link to the Church, in God's eyes. God desires all men to be saved through Christ's Body, through Love. Those who abide in Christ and Christ in them are part of the Church, His Body.
Therefore, if God did nothing else, and just sat back and watched, then all humans would wind up in hell. Would God be just in doing this? I suspect you would say "No", and I would say "Yes". What does God owe us? I don't think a thing at this point.
I would agree IF God hadn't made a promise with man IN THE GARDEN to send a redeemer... If God is just, then God will uphold His promises. If God is not just, then we can agree - God owes us nothing. He binds Himself to us out of love for us, not out of any "owing" anything to us.
No man ever has a right to say "What did you expect?" God would say "Where were you when I ..."
IF God establishes commandments to be obeyed, but doesn't give man the ability to obey them - then He is not just in any definition of the word. Even the Old Testament believed that God gave man the ability to choose to obey God or not. We have already discussed this when God gave Moses the commandments. Moses (and later Joshua) asked the people to choose between good and evil. It is silly to ask (much less command!) anyone to do something that they cannot possibly do.
I pointed out that this was an undecreed wish. God does, however, make some decreed wishes (promises) about His elect, does He not? I do believe that God has to come through on those, and my ASSURANCE is that He will do just that.
Of course. However, the Church has ALWAYS taught that we must persevere until the end because we don't KNOW we are of the elect. I ask you to consider what would be the point of Jesus telling the elect to persevere if they are infallibly saved? Or the non-elect to persevere if they cannot but sin? The whole idea of perseverance is lost on the Protestant theology of OSAS or TULIP.
There are not, there is only one side, God's. The accused have no "rights" of their own on Judgment Day, God gives rights to those whom He will. There is absolutely no room at all for any sense of human "fairness". God is far more "fair" than we could possibly imagine! :)
Then we can no longer call God "fair" if there is no possibility of a man pleasing God when God actively chooses to withhold from that man the ability to please God. We should stop kidding ourselves and stop calling God "fair" if this is your idea of what happens at Judgment. Let us come up with a new word for Him so we can understand what God's attributes are... As I said before, our ways and God's ways differ in degree, not in a totally different concept or definition. That is ridiculous.
Well, if I was the pastor of my own church, I certainly wouldn't have those rules, [women not speaking in Church] BUT, if some other Christian church wanted to observe them, I would not think less of them. Women would either show up or they wouldn't.
AH, but IF the Bible is the LITERAL word of God, you have gone against it! God's Word is independent of our own opinions. If God literally said that man should have 2 or more wives, or that woman should not speak in church, then who are you to go against God's Word? So in this example, you are merely showing that God's word found in the Bible is not His "literal" word, but His word through the medium of men. It is subject to interpretation.
I read what you said about the "sense of the faithful" being across time, but how can it be said to "lead" the hierarchy if it never means anything specific?
Our current leaders have a sense and knowledge of what has been taught before by the Church, "in all places, all times". The Church has said that this "sense" is the Spirit guiding the faith community through time and space. The Church tries to read this "mind", this body of teaching that have come before it and ask "what would the Apostles do", trying to maintain the intricate web of faith that holds other teachings in balance with each other. Again, this is the Spirit's work.
Regards
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.