Replies

Here, care to actually take a stab at this post:

Sock posted scripture in post 82 and gave a very good summation in regard to the issue of saints. You never addressed that...

In order for these verses to say what you want them to say they need a little editing.

[cut, cut, cut, add, add, add]

Rev. 5:8. And when He had taken the book, four living creatures and the twenty?four elders fell down before the Lamb, having each one a harp, and golden bowls full incense, which are the prayers to the saints.
Rev. 8:4. And the smoke of the incense, with the prayers to the saints, went up before God out of the angel's hand.

There! It does seem that instead of simply reading the verses for what they actually say--"prayers of the saints"--you somehow read this as saying--"prayers to the saints." Perhaps you will now realize that these passages do not even infer that "Prayer to the Saints... is Scriptural" but rather you as an RC must assume that these passage permit it.

"And another angel came and stood at the altar 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." (Revelation 8:3-4) "And when he [the Lamb] had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints" (Revelation 5:8). ~~~ Thus those saints who are angels have a role in presenting our prayers to God in an intercessory manner.... One might object, saying, "But maybe those weren't prayers to the saints but prayers to God!" This may well be true. However, a person who says this only digs the hole deeper for himself since this would mean that those in heaven are aware of prayers which weren't even directed to them!
How is this "digging a hole deeper"? I would argue that your choice of language (and your choice of doctrine) is fatally at fault here.
You are using the term "intercessory" as though it implies some sort of mediatorial entreaty by the Dead... even a mediatorial entreaty by the Justified Saints in Heaven (God forbid!! I must allege that Our Saints are grieved by this Roman Abomination, Sock).
Such an interpretation is expressly forbidden to the Church:

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; (1 Tim 2:5)

There shall not be found among you any one... that useth divination... or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD. (Deu 18:10-12, excerpt)

...and they came to the woman by night: and he said, I pray thee, divine unto me by the familiar spirit, and bring me him up, whom I shall name unto thee. And the woman said unto him, Behold, thou knowest what Saul hath done, how he hath cut off those that have familiar spirits, and the wizards, out of the land: wherefore then layest thou a snare for my life, to cause me to die? (1 Sam 28:8b-9)

Here's an "Amillenial Protestant" HINT for ya, Sock -- Revelations is by far the most "Old Testamental" Book in the New Covenant Scripture, rivalled only by the Johannine Gospel (also written by John) for its hundreds of direct and specific Old Testament References. Revelation is the most "Biblical" Book in the New Testament, bearing in mind that the Palestinian Canon of the Old Covenant Scriptures were the "Bible" which the Author was referencing.
If you do not reference the Old Testament every single time you read a single passage of Revelation, you will always, always, always get your understanding DEAD WRONG. "And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the Book, and to loose the seven seals thereof."
As concerns the specific passages under our consideration (Revelation 5:8, Revelation 8:3-4), realize that both these passages are a direct, specific, and umambiguous reference to Exodus chapter 30, verses 6 through 10:

And thou shalt put it before the vail that is by the ark of the testimony, before the mercy seat that is over the testimony, where I will meet with thee. And Aaron shall burn thereon sweet incense every morning: when he dresseth the lamps, he shall burn incense upon it. And when Aaron lighteth the lamps at even, he shall burn incense upon it, a perpetual incense before the LORD throughout your generations. Ye shall offer no strange incense thereon, nor burnt sacrifice, nor meat offering; neither shall ye pour drink offering thereon. And Aaron shall make an atonement upon the horns of it once in a year with the blood of the sin offering of atonements: once in the year shall he make atonement upon it throughout your generations: it is most holy unto the LORD.

Now, what should this tell you, Sock?

It is spiritual abomination to imagine that the People of God should "Pray unto Aaron". GOD FORBID!!
It is spiritual abomination to imagine that Aaron was commissioned to be "The Sacrifice of Israel". GOD FORBID!!

Aaron had One Role and he had one role only -- he carried the Confession of Sins and the Prayer for Salvation unto the Lord through the Vail of the Ark (and as per Paul's epistle to the Hebrews, we have now a better High Priest than Aaron, it must needs be said) unto the Lord of Hosts for the forgiveness of Sins.
Aaron neither knew nor received nor mediated the Prayers of the Saints; he merely carried them unto the Lord (as is equally seen in the collaborative references of Revelations 5 and 8). The Bringing of the Incense was an offeratory sacrifice given unto Him WHO ALONE knows the secret heart of Man:

But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. ~~ (Matthew 6:6)

How, then, would you dare to make our Beloved Saints a party to such an Anti-Biblical Usurpation, as to assign to them a role of mediatorial entreaty which Aaron himself would in no wise have claimed?

It is spiritual abomination to imagine that the People of God should "Pray unto the Saints". GOD FORBID!!
It is spiritual abomination to imagine that the Saints either know or receive or mediate the Prayers of the Saints to God in any way, shape, or form.

AN EVERLASTING CURSE ON SUCH A BLASPHEMY!!
Such a blasphemy is to Attribute to mere Men that which belongs to God Alone: to omnisciently see and perfectly reward that which is Prayed in secret. God Forbid that we should exalt the Creature such as this.
No, the Economy of Heaven mirrors the Economy of Israel in this: even as Aaron neither knew nor received nor mediated the Prayers of the Saints, so neither do the Saints on High. Like Aaron they have carried the Confession of Sins and the Prayer for Salvation unto the Lord... they want no part of Unseemly Divination (in which, not being Omniscient, they have not the Power to partake anyway).
You say that we Protestants do not venerate the Saints??
I say that we Protestants venerate the Saints more highly than any Roman.
We Protestants do indeed venerate the martyred Saints... but we do not seek to make them a party to any abominable divination, or strange incense, of which Our Blessed Saints want no thrice-damned part.

nor did you address the points I made in reference to sola scriptura and the Trinity.

Just for fun, let's consider the Protestant Hermeneutic:

Scripture interprets Scripture.

Now, I suppose that one could allege that Scripture does not interpret Scripture. But such an allegation would contradict the teaching of 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 all good works.

On the basis of 2 Timothy 3:16-17, then, let's entertain for discussion the Protestant contention that Scripture is essentially perspicuous:
ADJECTIVE: Clearly expressed or presented; easy to understand.

Now, if Scripture is perspicuous, then the Delineation of Doctrine expressed in the Church Creeds is not so much a matter of the development of Doctrine (to use the common Roman expression), as it is the synthesis of Doctrine, already-existing and entirely present in the Scriptures themselves.
For example, if we wanted to promulgate a doctrinal Creed to the following effect:

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man.

In order to promulgate this Creed, we should find it necessary to test its Creedal Declarations against all relevant passages of Scripture, to determine whether or not such a Creed faithfully expressed perfect adherence to all relevant Scriptures, and without contradiction of any relevant Scripture.
So, now, let us Test this proposed Creed as to its perfect adherence to and non-contradiction with all relevant passages of Scripture.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, (Acts 10:36)
the only Son of God,(John 3:16-18, cf. John 6:46)
eternally begotten of the Father, (John 1:18)
God from God, (John 8:58)
Light from Light, (John 1:9)
true God from true God, (Colossians 1:15)
begotten, not made, (John 1:2)
of one Being with the Father. (John 1:1)
Through him all things were made. (John 1:3)
For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: (John 1:7)
by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. (John 1:14, cf. Luke 1:27, Matthew 1:20)

The proposed Creed in question may be adjudged as Sound, for it perfectly adheres to all relevant passages of Scripture, and contradicts no relevant passage of Scripture whatsoever.
But is this Creed (which is found nowhere in Scripture in this format) somehow a "development" of Doctrine, as per the common Romanist claim for the alleged "authority" of their Church?? No, we have not "developed" a blessed thing.
Every single Creedal Declaration encompassed herein is already contained in Scripture, entirely perspicuous in every word; we have simply synthesized together the already-existent declarations of Scripture into a unitary, Creedal format. Contra the Roman view of "interpretation", no "development" of Doctrine has occurred at all; only a synthesis of already-existent Scripture into a unitary format.

In short, a good Scripturally-consistent Creed is rather more like a simple chain-reference than any sort of ex cathedra pronouncement.

The reason why the Mormon Creeds (and also the distinctly Romanistic Creeds) are to be rejected by Biblical Christians, is this simple test of Scriptural perspicuity, adherence, and non-contradiction.

The Mormon Creeds do not adhere to the Perspicuous teaching of Scripture on Christology, and often contradict the Perspicuous teaching of Scripture. Ergo, they fail the test.

Likewise, the distinctly Romanistic Creeds fail this test, when they posit the Semi-Pelagian Dogma of natural human response to the Things of the Spirit.

I am not going to keep asking because you admited yourself that you interpret scripture however you see fit with no authority except yourself--and you don't even see how laughable that is.

What makes me laugh is that you either think that this is what I said or want to believe that this is what I said. Either way, I should probably be looking up your english teacher....