Is Prayer/Veneration/Worship to Mary Biblical?

self | 12-14-14 | ealgeone

[ealgeone]

The reason for this article is to determine if the worship/veneration given to Mary by the catholic church is justified from a Biblical perspective. This will be evaluated using the Biblical standard and not man’s standard.

[Springfield Reformer]

No, I find that interpretation misses the mark. James is emphatic. He is an Apostle. He learned at the feet of the LORD Jesus Christ. Are you going to depreciate the many scriptures of the LORD Jesus Christ where He Himself is going to judge us according to our works in order to support a 16th Century Gentile doctrine ? That is completely untenable. Yes, the scriptures harmonize, but not in the way you suggest. Messiah will judge us, not by works of the law, but by works of faith.

Which men witnessed Abraham offering up his only begotten son to die in a type of the Messiah ? That was not for Isaac's benefit, nor the angel's, nor other men. That was a testing of Abraham's faith and God was well pleased. What does the scripture say ? It said that now God knew Abraham feared (believed and obeyed) God because of what he had just done in not withholding his only begotten son from death. It says that Abraham believed God was able to raise Isaac from the dead after his sacrifice. These were not works of the law, of debt. These were works of righteousness, of faith, against which there is no law. They are between God and us and are required tests of faith.

I don't write the lexicons.  I just take them seriously.

Louw-Nida:
88.16 δικαιόωb: to demonstrate that something is morally right—‘to show to be right, to prove to be right.’ ὅπως ἂν δικαιωθῇς ἐν τοῖς λόγοις σου ‘you must be shown to be right when you speak’ Ro 3:4.

Liddell, H. G. (1996). A lexicon: Abridged from Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English lexicon:
δῐκαιόω, Ion. impf. δικαιεῦν: f. ώσω and ώσομαι: aor. I ἐδικαίωσα:—Pass., aor. I ἐδικαιώθην: (δίκαιος):
I. to set right: Pass., δικαιωθείς proved, tested, Aesch.
II. to hold or deem right, think fit, demand, c. inf., Hdt., etc.; inf. omitted, as οὕτω δικαιοῦν (sc. γενέσθαι) Id.:—to consent, δουλεύειν Id.; οὐ δ. to refuse, Thuc.:—c. acc. pers. et inf. to desire one to do, Hdt.
III. to do a man right or justice, to judge, i.e.,
1. to condemn, Thuc.: to chastise, punish, Hdt.
2. to deem righteous, justify, N.T. Hence δικαίωμα

Arndt, W., Gingrich, F. W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (1979). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (aka BAGD) :
δικαιόω fut. δικαιώσω; 1 aor. ἐδικαίωσα; 1 aor. pass. ἐδικαιώθην, subj. δικαιωθῶ, ptc. δικαιωθείς; 1 fut. pass. δικαιωθήσομαι; pf. pass. δεδικαίωμαι Ro 6:7; 1 Cor 4:4, ptc. δεδικαιωμένος Lk 18:14 (Soph., Hdt.+; pap., LXX; Jos., Ant. 17, 206; Test. 12 Patr.).
1. show justice, do justice τινά to someone (Polyb. 3, 3l, 9; Cass. Dio 48, 46; 2 Km 15:4; Ps 81:3)to one who is just 1 Cl 16:12 (Is 53:11); χήραν (χήρᾳ v.l.) 8:4 (Is 1:17).
2. justify, vindicate, treat as just (Appian, Liby. 17 §70; Gen 44:16; Sir 10:29; 13:22; 23:11 al.) θέλων δ. ἑαυτόν wishing to justify himself Lk 10:29; δ. ἑαυτὸν ἐνώπιόν τινος j. oneself before someone 16:15 δ. ἐαυτόν (as En. 102, 10; but s. JoachJeremias, ZNW 38, ’39, 117f). Of wisdom ἐδικαιώθη ἀπὸ τῶν τέκνων αὐτῆς is vindicated by her children (on δικ. ἀπό cf. Is 45:25. S. also Appian, Basil. 8: δικαιόω=consider someth. just or correct) 7:35; also ἀπὸ τῶν ἔργων αὐτῆς Mt 11:19 (v.l. τέκνων). On this saying s. DVölter, NThT 8, ’19, 22-42; JMBover, Biblica 6, ’25, 323-5; 463-65; M-JLagrange, ibid. 461-3. τελῶναι ἐδικαίωσαν τὸν θεόν tax-collectors acknowledged God’s justice (opp. τὴν βουλὴν τ. θεοῦ ἀθετεῖν) Lk 7:29 (cf. PsSol 2:15; 3:5). δεδικαιωμένος 18:14. ὁ δικαιούμενός μοι the one who vindicates himself before (or against) me B 6:1 (cf. Is 50:8).—Dg 5:14; Hm 5, 1, 7.
3. Paul, who has influenced later wr., uses the word almost exclusively of God’s judgment. Esp.
a. of men δικαιοῦσθαι be acquitted, be pronounced and treated as righteous and thereby become δίκαιος, receive the divine gift of δικαιοσύνη, as a theological t.t. be justified Mt 12:37; Ac 13:39; Rv 22:11 t.r.; Ro 2:13; 3:20 (Ps 142:2), 24, 28; 4:2; 5:1, 9; 1 Cor 4:4; Gal 2:16f (Ps 142:2); 3:11, 24; 5:4; Tit 3:7; Phil 3:12 v.l.; B 4:10; 15:7; IPhld 8:2; Dg 9:4; (w. ἁγιάζεσθαι) Hv 3, 9, 1. οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο δεδικαίωμαι I am not justified by this (after 1 Cor 4:4) IRo 5:1. ἵνα δικαιωθῇ σου ἡ σάρξ that your flesh (as the sinful part) may be acquitted Hs 5, 7, 1; δ. ἔργοις by (on the basis of) works, by what one does 1 Cl 30:3; cf. Js 2:21, 24f (ἔργον 1a and πίστις 2dδ); διʼ ἐαυτῶν δ. by oneself=as a result of one’s own accomplishments 1Cl 32:4.
b. of God’s activity Ro 3:26, 30; 4:5 (on δικαιοῦν τὸν ἀσεβῆ cf. Ex 23:7; Is 5:23); 8:30, 33 (Is 50:8); Gal 3:8; Dg 9:5. For the view (held since Chrysostom) that δ. in these and other pass. means ‘make upright’ s. Gdspd., Probs. 143-6, JBL 73, ’54, 86-91.
c. δικαιόω make free or pure (Ps 72:13) and pass. δικαιοῦμαι be set free, made pure ἀπό from (Sir 26:29; Test. Sim. 6:1, both δικ. ἀπὸ [τῆς] ἁμαρτίας) ἀπὸ πάντων ὧν οὐκ ἠδυνήθητε ἐν νόμω Μωϋσέως δικαιωθῆναι from everything fr. which you could not be freed by the law of Moses Ac 13:38; cf. vs. 39. ὁ ἀποθανὼν δεδικαίωται ἀπὸ τ. ἁμαρτίας the one who died is freed fr. sin Ro 6:7 (cf. KGKuhn, ZNW 30, ’31, 305-10; EKlaar, ibid. 59, ’68, 131-4). In the context of 1 Cor 6:11 ἐδικαιώθητε means you have become pure.—In the language of the mystery religions (Rtzst., Mysterienrel.3 258ff) δικαιοῦσθαι refers to a radical inner change which the initiate experiences (Herm. Wr. 13, 9 χωρὶς γὰρ κρίσεως ἰδὲ πῶς τὴν ἀδικίαν ἐξήλασεν. ἐδικαιώθημεν,  ὦ τἔκνον, ἀδικίας ἀπούσης) and approaches the sense ‘become deified’. Some are inclined to find in 1 Ti 3:16 a similar use; but see under d.
d. God is proved to be right Ro 3:4; 1 Cl 18:4 (both Ps 50:6). Of Christ 1 Ti 3:16.—Lit. s. on δικαιοσύνη 3 and 4.—HRosman, Iustificare (δικαιοῦν) est verbum causativum: Verbum Domini 21, ’41, 144-7; NMWatson, Δικ. in the LXX, JBL 79, ’60, 255-66. M-M.*

δῐκαιόω has the dynamic range it has.  I didn't invent the word or supply the multiple meanings.  The fact remains, despite your protestations, the passage in Luke 7:29, when men are justifying God, cannot possibly mean that men are making God righteous.  God is already righteous.  Men are merely recognizing a truth about Him.  But that is not Paul's meaning in Romans 4.  The clue is Paul's use of the legal expression "reckon:"

Romans 4:2-5  For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.  (3)  For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted ("to reckon," Greek "logizomai") unto him for righteousness.  (4)  Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.  (5)  But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

"logizomai" is an accounting term.  In the above context it is not the recognition of an inherent righteousness in Abraham.  It is a judicial act whereby Abraham's faith is credited, by God, to Abraham's account in the currency of righteousness. So when Abraham checks his account, he finds he has been credited with righteousness, not for what he did, but because he believed God.  All of this happens before he is circumcised, so this has nothing to do with a righteousness derived from the law. Paul's entire purpose in describing this act of God that makes Abraham righteous is precisely to highlight that Abraham's works were NOT the cause of this justification.  Paul spells it out in verse 2.  Abraham's works get him no credit before God.  

But did Abraham's justification produce a man who was all talk and no deed?  Emphatically not, and it is THAT about which James is being, as you say, emphatic. God made His covenant promise to Abraham some two decades or more before he offered up Isaac.  Abraham was already walking with God by faith, and had been ever since the day he first believed.  Therefore he was already being accounted as righteous, as a consequence of his faith.

Do you really think God did not know what Abraham would do?  I did not think you were an Open Theism person.  Open Theism takes these passages in the OT and elsewhere, in which God is describing things in a human frame of reference, as if they reflect a true limit on the omniscience of God.  This is clear heresy, and I cannot imagine you embrace it.  Open theism, in making the future unknowable even to God, renders prophecy uncertain.  It dethrones that God of which Isaiah could say:

Isaiah 46:9-10  Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,  (10)  Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

God has no need for us to demonstrate to Him what He already knows.  The need is on our end.  And untold millions have benefited from this demonstration of Abraham's faith, recorded for us in Scripture.  How one can say this was just show and tell for a God Who didn't already know, I have no idea.  Especially when Paul has made it clear that Abraham's belief early on is what made Abraham justified before God, not his later response of obedience.

Bottom line, it appears to me you are doing what I recommended against in my earlier post.  You cannot "pick a winner" in an apparent contradiction without doing damage somewhere else.  You must give a full accounting for Paul's teaching, or else you must write him out of the canon.

But instead you suggest a new category of works, "works of faith," by which I take you to mean we devolve to the tenuous condition of the wage earner trying to earn his way into Heaven by works not found in the law, but works one does in an effort to prove faith to God, who apparently does not know we have this faith without such proofs.  If I have understood you correctly (and I admit I may not have), this is a nonsense category, because every single "work of faith" that one might do is found in one form or another in the law already.  The sum of the law, Jesus said, was to worship God with all we have and to love each other as we love ourselves, and these must also be the very works that flow from our faith as Christ-followers.  So there is no new set of "faith works" we must now do as an alternative to the OT law works.

But our justification, in the Pauline sense, occurs, not when we perform some deed, not even when done from a faith motive, but when we are credited, by God, as being righteous, simply for having believed God, as Abraham did.  When Jesus was asked what it means to do the work of God, did He list laws, or some multiplicity of faith-testing deeds we could do? No, he did not:

John 6:28-29  Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?  (29)  Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Works of faith are necessary, yes, but not as an instrument to our justification in the judicial sense. No work, whether of faith or duty, will ever draw the sentence "Not Guilty" from the Judge of the Universe.  That is a sentence God passes, based on the seed of faith planted before the good fruit of works has had any chance to grow and ripen.  Works of faith are necessary though, in the sense that if there is a sun, it necessarily will produce sunlight, if there is a mother, there will necessarily be a child, if there is a living fruit tree, there will be fruit.  Each of these things produces what it does because it is in it's nature to do so.  If the nature is there, the byproducts will follows. If not, they won't.  That's what James is teaching, and it in no way conflicts with Paul.

Alternatively, to deny Paul's doctrine of justification, one must edit him out of the Bible.  This is no recent Gentile theory.  This is the teaching of a duly appointed Apostle of Jesus Christ.  Why would we be forced to choose James over Paul, or Paul over James?  God would not do that to us.  But men might try it.  I reject the false dichotomy.  You say you accept they are in harmony, but you have not offered, as far as I can tell, anything but a reaffirmation of your errant view of James, with nothing whatsoever to show how it relates to Paul, other than this failed dodge of "works of faith" versus, I don't know, "works NOT of faith?"  Which makes no sense.  The first commandment, worshiping God, can't even be done without faith.  It's a parsing of terms that gets you right back where you started, trying to earn eternal life on your own merit. Just dressed up with talk of faith.  I'm not seeing it.

If I've misunderstood, feel free to try again. In the meantime, I hope you will forgive me for continuing to believe Paul on divine justification by faith without works and James on evidence of faith by works.

Peace,

SR

[ealgeone]

Catholics can sling verses too. The difference is that ours are in context.

Oh man....now that's funny!

Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding.

First appeal I've seen a catholic make to the Lord. You're getting there.

[verga]

Do you think it's ONLY Roman Catholics who possess advanced theological degrees? Expertise in ancient Greek and Hebrew? Biblical knowledge?<>P> AMPU is the only one here that has demonstrated more than a basic proficiency in Greek. (Much more AMPU.) I have asked any number of you all what your qualifications are. NOT A SINGLE ONE HAS DONE ANYTHING MORE THAN DODGE OR OBFUSCATE!

Capable of deep intellectual thinking and proper formation of opinions and interpretation?

Several of you including AMPU are more than capable. Prot knowledge of history is ludicrous and the majority of you don't have the intellectual stamina to fight your way out of a wet paper bag.

One of your own used to boast regularly that all the really "smart" Protestants convert to Roman Catholicism. Is this what you think, too?

Only the ones that want a real shot at getting to heaven.

[MamaB]

Because the Holy Spirit will help us understand what we are reading. We certainly do not depend on traditions by men. I learned that as a child after becoming a Christian. When I have questions, I go to my pastor who has been our pastor since 1978. He is a few years older than I but he got his phd or whatever the proper title is in ancient languages like Greek, Hebrew, etc. He is the best.

[verga]

First appeal I've seen a catholic make to the Lord. You're getting there.

You need to pay more attention.

[verga]

I am sorry to tell you. It is not allowed for to go to your pastor according to many of the others around here.

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

“When I have questions, I go to my pastor...”

Many years ago, my Dad’s boss stopped by my Dad’s desk to introduce him to his, the boss’s pastor. In the course of the conversation the pastor asked, ‘Do you know who I am? I am the man who, when the other pastors in this city have a question about what the Bible says, they come to me.’ My Dad’s response, ‘Do you know who I am? I am the man, when I have a question about what the Bible says, I ask the Holy Spirit!’ And so ended the conversation rather abruptly, as my Dad’s boss hustled his pastor off to lunch.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“We find our Jewish heritage in the Churchs liturgy as well. The priests vestments at Mass have ancient origins”

yes, non-Biblical for the Church.

Still, of all the denominations that claim to follow Christ, the Roman denomination has the most beautiful and dramatic costumes and pageantry.

Admittedly, not limiting themselves to Scripture opens up a world of religion to draw from, but still the drama, color, mystical symbols, finest materials, etc. lend themselves to such beauty and drama.

[af_vet_1981]

I don't write the lexicons. I just take them seriously.

Then you may like this:

On the above view, a host of Biblical passages immediately become clear. For example, St. Paul teaches in Hebrews 11:6 that “Without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.” This passage plainly explains why faith is necessary for salvation. Significantly, it does not identify faith alone as salvific, nor does it mention or even allude to imputation. Rather, faith is salvific because faith serves as the foundation by which one “pleases God.” St. Paul goes onto list a series of examples from the Old Testament where the Saints “please God.” Each of them “pleases God” through doing a good work “by faith.” Per Hebrews 11:6, then, God rewards those who seek God on the basis of faith. A reward is not a legally obligated payment, nor is it unrelated to works. Rather, it is a gracious gift that is given in response to works. Nor can we understand the reward of Hebrews 11 to be something other than salvation itself. Hebrews 11:39 identifies the reward being discussed as “what was promised” to the Family of Abraham. That is, this is the inheritance of the Kingdom of God. It is salvation itself. Galatians 5:6 and following also becomes easily understandable. The Apostle in this passage teaches that the only thing that matters is “faith working through love.” We find what we discovered in Hebrews 11 confirmed. Faith is salvific if the Christian uses it to produce works of love. Later in the chapter, St. Paul says, in an extended passage worth quoting in full:

(Galatians 5:18-23) But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.

If we understand faith alone to be salvific in the sense that retaining faith in God is sufficient to produce good works automatically, then this passage seems quite out of place. The Protestant teaching is that good works are the fruit of faith in the sense that they will automatically spring from genuine faith, and if they do not spring from faith, then the faith itself is not faith at all. The Church teaches, by contrast, that the difference lies not in the kind of faith that the person has, but rather in the free decision of the person to use (or not use) faith to produce good deeds. On this understanding, Galatians 5:18-23 makes perfect sense. St. Paul is warning those Christians in Galatia that if they do not use their faith to produce good works, then they will not be saved. If the production of good works is automatic, then such a passage is totally unnecessary. The thrust of St. Paul’s teaching in the Letter to the Romans about law and grace also clears up. He teaches in Romans 4:4 that “to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.” That is, if one performs “works of the law” (for that is what Paul calls them in Romans 3:28), then the inheritance that one receives is not a gracious gift (a reward, as the letter to the Hebrews makes clear) from God, but is rather a legally obligated payment. One can never obligate God to do anything. He owes us nothing. We must relate to Him not as a distant businessowner, but as a father. It is therefore evident that the Apostle Paul is not condemning all works, whether done inside or outside of faith, but particularly those works that do not spring from a familial relationship of genuine faith.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

"One of your own used to boast regularly that all the really "smart" Protestants convert to Roman Catholicism. Is this what you think, too?

Only the ones that want a real shot at getting to heaven.

Count me in the camp that wonders why God never mentioned this as the source of salvation. He seems stuck on salvation through Christ in the passages I am familiar with. He had 66 books to do it and left it out! Yikes!

Maybe the next edition...

[af_vet_1981]

yes, non-Biblical for the Church. Still, of all the denominations that claim to follow Christ, the Roman denomination has the most beautiful and dramatic costumes and pageantry. Admittedly, not limiting themselves to Scripture opens up a world of religion to draw from, but still the drama, color, mystical symbols, finest materials, etc. lend themselves to such beauty and drama.

Does the Jewish heritage of the Catholic Church offend you ?

[Rides_A_Red_Horse]

....”How do you treat the remains of your relatives? Do you regard their remains as rotten? Or do you treat their remains reverently?”......

---

Based upon those pictures YOU GUYS treat your deceased much in the way Norman Bates treated his mother!

[Rides_A_Red_Horse]

You are wrong!

[Rides_A_Red_Horse]

You are wrong!

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“Does the Jewish heritage of the Catholic Church offend you ?”

Decidedly not. I take no offense at the choices of others as long as they do not infringe on my freedoms, safety or that of my family.

Whether someone worships The God, or lesser gods, or Mary, or saints, or idols or believes anything they wish. Their call. I can neither convince them to convert to Christ, nor force them. I can tell His truth and get out of His way. He alone opens eyes and hearts.

As it should be.

I take no offense as to whether they accept or reject His call. I decidedly wish they would come to Him for salvation.

More to the topic, of course the costumes have nothing to do with the real NT church. Every Christian is a priest and there is no priestly class. There are no instructions for costumes, as God gave Israel. Nor encouragement to steal that which was given to Israel.

All Scripture is for us, but it is not all about us.

As I said, it was “borrowed” to make the earthly Roman denomination look more impressive. His Church doesn’t need any of that. Man looks on the outward appearance. God looks on the heart.

[Rides_A_Red_Horse]

Does the Jewish heritage of the Catholic Church offend you ?

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZegQYgygdw

[af_vet_1981]

Do you really think God did not know what Abraham would do? I did not think you were an Open Theism person. Open Theism takes these passages in the OT and elsewhere, in which God is describing things in a human frame of reference, as if they reflect a true limit on the omniscience of God. This is clear heresy, and I cannot imagine you embrace it.

Do you really think the LORD Jesus Christ did not mean what he said to those who have ears to hear in Revelation ? It would be willful folly to rely on the so called reformers who had no valid authority from the LORD and close one's ears to Revelation. I cannot imagine you would embrace it.

Misinterpreting Paul is a documented error in the scriptures. One need not take your view to harmonize the scriptures. I have a sure defense against heresy. What is your defense ?

[ealgeone]

your post 3481....very nice work.

[terycarl]

the sentence in your tag line ends with a preposition...that is a no-no. Your sentence didn't begin with a capital "T". Are you applying for the Grammar Nazi position that doesn't exist on FR?

It was a good natured attempt at humor which you obviously can't comprehend (comprehend means :to understand)

[terycarl]

I think I'll switch it back to the way it was. The directional element was important.

Isn't that what protestants usually do, discover they are wrong, admit it, and then revert to their own ideas of what is correct.....typical.