ALL THE ANGELS, AND ARCHANGELS, AND ALL THE SAINTS, INCLUDING THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY, ARE MEDIATORS TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY ARE INTERCESSORS: THEY ALL INTERCEDE FOR HUMANS BEFORE GOD THE FATHER VIA GOD THE SON.
Your question has left ambiguity in what the subject actually is and thats why Catholics are able to perform their mental gymnastics.
You are arguing with a strawman, no Catholics think that all prayers have to go through particularly Mary and you know this. Why be disingenuous? You should point out the verse where Christ says to only pray to the father in heaven
Catholics don't claim you "need" to ask for intercession, only that it's good to do so. Most of our prayers are direct prayer, not intercession. It's not either "all direct prayer" or "all intercession," you can and should do both, because the prayers of the righteous availeth much.
There are no verses in Scripture which command us to pray to the dead for us. It doesn't appear that there's really any verses that explicitly say not to, but we can reason our way through it.
Scripture is very clear when it says to pray to God directly in all matters (John 16:23). Why then should we pray to anyone or anything else? Do you mean to say they have any power that Christ does not? Is a saint's mercy more important than Christ's? You're falling into idolatry.
The Concordia cites contemporary Gabriel Biel that we can be saved by the merits of the saints. This is clearly contrary to Scripture which tells us salvation comes to us from Christ. A medieval absolution rite cites the merits of Mary and the saints for the forgiveness of sins.
There's the further view that certain saints have certain duties, like my example of praying to St Anthony to find lost homework. This is more pagan superstition.
The medieval era also had severe iconography. Images were thought to actually possess spiritual forces. Again, superstitious and non scriptural.
The section on this subject in the Concordia is absolutely worth reading because it clarifies the issue at hand and adds the historical context of the complaint.
ALL THE ANGELS, AND ARCHANGELS, AND ALL THE SAINTS, INCLUDING THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY, ARE MEDIATORS TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY ARE INTERCESSORS: THEY ALL INTERCEDE FOR HUMANS BEFORE GOD THE FATHER VIA GOD THE SON.
NO; HE WAS BEING DISINGENUOUS, AVOIDING THE ARGUMENT BY IMPLYING THAT WHAT IS NOT EXPLICIT IN THE HOLY BIBLE IS INVALID.
WHY ARE YOU SHOUTING
And what kind of Christian name is "cumgenius" anyway?
None of the verses in this infographic correlate with what you are trying to say. How can the clergy and the saints be "united to and participatory" with Jesus Christ when the Bible explicitly says they are not. Jesus and God want you to have a personal relationship with them, they don't want a human to get in the way of your relationship with them.
There's a huge difference between praying for someone and insisting that all prayers have to go through you. Show me a single verse where the Bible discourages people from interacting directly with God.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
You're arguing with a straw man.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
You are arguing with a strawman, no Catholics think that all prayers have to go through particularly Mary and you know this. Why be disingenuous? You should point out the verse where Christ says to only pray to the father in heaven
Catholics don't claim you "need" to ask for intercession, only that it's good to do so. Most of our prayers are direct prayer, not intercession. It's not either "all direct prayer" or "all intercession," you can and should do both, because the prayers of the righteous availeth much.
I'm not arguing with a straw man. The Catholic Church made it illegal to translate the Bible into English. They did this so they could be the only people who could read the Bible. How can you confess your sins without a priest when they are the only ones who can read the Bible?
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
You are arguing with a strawman, no Catholics think that all prayers have to go through particularly Mary and you know this. Why be disingenuous? You should point out the verse where Christ says to only pray to the father in heaven
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
Catholics don't claim you "need" to ask for intercession, only that it's good to do so. Most of our prayers are direct prayer, not intercession. It's not either "all direct prayer" or "all intercession," you can and should do both, because the prayers of the righteous availeth much.
>How can the clergy and the saints be "united to and participatory" with Jesus Christ when the Bible explicitly says they are not.
On the contrary, the Bible explicitly says that they are -- whenever Christians pray for one another, as Paul COMMANDS us to do, Christians are acting as intercessors.
And to be an intercessor is a mediating role.
Now, this does not subvert 1 Tm 2:5 -- it is all of a piece. For 1 Tm 2:5 is preceded by 1 Tm 2:1-2: "I urge, then... that petitions, prayers, intercession... be made for all men."
1 Tm 2, in turn, accords with Paul's exposition of the nature of the church in 1 Cor 12:28. Paul does NOT say go straight to God and Jesus, ONLY. Rather, we are to go to apostles, teachers, etc., i.e., those placed into mediating roles.
In a similar way, Jesus is the “chief” Shepherd of His flock (John 10:11–16; 1 Peter 5:4), yet He assigns lesser shepherds to take part in this ministry (John 21:15–17; Ephesians 4:11). That’s what the word “pastor” means.
In 1 Timothy 2:1-2, Paul calls for intercession for all people. This has nothing to do with there being more than one mediator. I've noticed that Anglo philistines, ultimately a Catholic position given that Materialism is a Vatican original, quite literally cannot read, and seem to freely interchange prepositions for one another: "intercession and thanks-giving be made FOR all people" in this case could be read as "intercession [...] THROUGH all people" by the Catholic. This is why Anglos cannot read Hegel, by the way. In 1 Corinthians 12:28, Paul says that the Church contains many kinds of people, neither of which are mediators. The subsequent conclusion is absurd. If all other mediatorship is forbidden, it follows that said categories can be kept as whatever they are, except mediatorship.
>quite literally cannot read, and seem to freely interchange prepositions for one another: "intercession and thanks-giving be made FOR all people" in this case could be read as "intercession [...] THROUGH all people" by the Catholic.
One intercedes FOR someone, but the intercession itself is made THROUGH the one who is doing the interceding.
And if you seek to impose a highly dubious hard-line distinction between the meaning of "mediation" and "intercession," that's fine from a Catholic POV.
For all Catholic prayers that allegedly transgress 1 Tm 2:5-6 fall on the "intercession" side of the (supposed) intercession-mediation line.
Thus, if you prefer, you can say that St. Peter "interceded" in healing the Temple cripple, rather than acting as a mediator between the cripple and God (although it is a distinction without a difference).
That would just mean that saints, apostles and clergy are good, but not necessary, and a man's faith in God can do without them. That idea makes Catholics seethe - as they postulate that the Holy Church is not participatory to the mediation, but absolutely necessary.
I would rather find out how Christians cope with Genesis 19:
[30] And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.
[31] And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:
[32] Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
[33] And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
[34] And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our Father.
[35] And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
[36] Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.
Lot paid the consequence of being weak. He established himself in a morally corrupt area, became materialistic and lost his wife when she turned around to look for what she left behind. He needed to be carried outside the city by the angels and tried to bargain with God about where he was supposed to go.
What a cope. That literally has nothing to do with his daughters getting him drunk and having sex with him, impregnating themselves with their biological father's sperm.
It was meant to show that the Moabites were the product of an incestuous relationship, thus making any claims they had to land illegitimate. Were you raised in a fundamentalist household or something?
>INSISTING that all prayers HAVE to go through you.
Your hyper sensitivity (exaggerating with words like "insist" and phrases like "have to") or lack of reading comprehension has to be dealt with. Are you on an ESL island?
because if you actually read james 2, that's not the point that it's making. the point is that true faith compels you to do good deeds; they flow through one with faith. this differs from claiming to have faith and sitting idly by someone in need. this isn't to suggest though that you NEED to do catholic indulgences and absolution as some sort of meritorious working off your debts to god.
>INSISTING that all prayers HAVE to go through you.
Your hyper sensitivity (exaggerating with words like "insist" and phrases like "have to") or lack of reading comprehension has to be dealt with. Are you on an ESL island?
>the point is that true faith compels you to do good deeds; they flow through one with faith.
Luther understood James correctly: James 2 contradicts Luther's theory that we're saved by faith alone. That's why Luther called James an epistle of straw.
no, moron. he called it an epistle of straw in comparison to the other new testament books. his point was the other books are more to the core of christ and teach you all that is necessary. i'm so sick of the quotes of things at face value so often in bible threads.
>In a word St. John’s Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and salvatory for you to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it.4
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
For Luther, the gospel = justification by faith alone.
James "has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it" because it refutes Luther's sola fide, and teaches that works are necessary. Indeed, faith without works is dead. Simple as.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
you're doing it again. read here
because if you actually read james 2, that's not the point that it's making. the point is that true faith compels you to do good deeds; they flow through one with faith. this differs from claiming to have faith and sitting idly by someone in need. this isn't to suggest though that you NEED to do catholic indulgences and absolution as some sort of meritorious working off your debts to god.
.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
Luther understood the import of James 2 -- it absolutely conflicts with sola fide. Your strained eisegesis doesn't change that, no matter how many times you repeat it.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
you're doing what atheists do and look at a single quote at face value. read the entire passage. this isn't a ledger of good deeds as meritorious lest no man should boast; james is making the point that if you truly have faith, you will help that person with food or warmth in passing. you won't stand by and say "Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body". read ephesians 2:8-10: > For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
the matter of salvation is quite clear if you read the james passage as a whole instead of cherry pick one fricking line.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
>the matter of salvation is quite clear
Repent, be baptized, and give the Catholic Church lots of money.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
>“To make war against the Pope is to make war against God, seeing the Pope is God, and God is the Pope.” -Moreri's History.
>"The leader of the Catholic church is defined by the faith as the Vicar of Jesus Christ (and is accepted as such by believers). The Pope is considered the man on earth who takes the place of the Second Person of the omnipotent God of the Trinity." (John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, p. 3, 1994).
>"The Pope is not simply the representative of Jesus Christ. On the contrary, he is Jesus Christ Himself, under the veil of the flesh, and who by means of a being common to humanity continues His ministry amongst men ... Does the Pope speak? It is Jesus Christ Who is speaking. -Evangelical Christendom, January 1, 1895, pg. 15, published in London by J. S. Phillips.
protestants have their own problems, sure, but defending catholicism at this point is insane.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
The bottom line is that Luther was honest enough to recognize that James 2 flatly contradicted his theory of sola fide -- which, moreover, was truly a new gospel and *not* a return to the teaching of the early Church.
The Anglican Alister McGrath is the leading scholar on the history of the doctrine of justification. In his book, Iustitia Dei, he famously described the classic, solely forensic Protestant understanding of justification as being a "theological novum" and a "fundamental intellectual discontinuity" in the western tradition.
In particular, he noted that "the Reformers departed from" Augustine on the question of the meaning of justification, while, by contrast, medieval theologians were "astonishingly faithful to the teaching of Augustine" on justification.
McGrath: >Augustine has an all-embracing transformative understanding of justification... >There is no hint in Augustine of any notion of justification purely in terms of ‘reputing as righteous’ or ‘treating as righteous’, as if this state of affairs could come into being without the moral or spiritual transformation of humanity through grace.
Now, in the edition of the book quoted above, McGrath suggested that Augustine may have been mistaken in his translation of the Greek word for justification (Augustine was not expert in Greek).
In the most recent edition of the book, however, McGrath now acknowledges that the early Greek Fathers' conception of justification was one of making righteous, "not as the declarative extra nos imputation conception of justification held by the Protestants"(https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2020/05/alister-mcgraths-conversion-on-justification/)
That is, the Greek Fathers had the same understanding of "justification" as Augustine did.
Thus, if "the gospel" rests on the Reformers' understanding of justification by faith alone, that is, a solely forensic/imputed justification, as distinguished from the Catholic understanding of an infused justification, that Protestant Gospel was never taught in the Church prior to the Reformers.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
if james contradicts the idea of sola fide, then james defies paul's teachings. i believe they compliment each other and thus catholic absolution and indulgences are bullshit and luther is absolutely correct. i'm not even going to read the rest of your post.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
rebel spirit and a filthy tongue.
Luther would be proud
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
Jesus was a rebel too.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
According to the Sanhedrin
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
The Sanhedrin was the Catholic Church of Jesus' time.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
>if james contradicts the idea of sola fide, then james defies paul's teachings.
But Paul never says we're saved by faith alone. Indeed, he never speaks of "faith alone." The only place the phrase "faith alone" is found in the NT is in James 2, which teaches that "a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone."
“Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?” (James 2:21)
“And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?” (James 2:25)
Mind you, James is *not* saying that works, apart from faith, save. But rather that faith is “completed by works” (James 2:22), and insufficient in itself.
There are several places, as well, where Paul makes clear that he did not believe in the Protestant notion of sola fide, e.g., when he says that even if your faith is STRONG ENOUGH TO MOVE MOUNTAINS, it is useless if you have not love:
>If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.
1 Corinthians 13.
Thus he refutes the Protestant sola fide theory in 1 Corinthians 13, and also in Galatians:
>"The only thing that matters is faith working in love." Galatians 5:6
Again, Paul NEVER speaks of salvation through "faith alone." And he never uses the phrase "faith alone," although there are many places in his writings where it would have been quite natural for him to say that, if that's what he believed, or if that's what he wanted to teach.
And although it's your prerogative as to whether you choose to read the rest of my post, what's included there is quite important to this discussion because it goes to the issue of what the early Church believed on this subject. And it is 100% clear that the early Church did NOT believe that Paul taught sola fide.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
>"a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone."
What works did the thief on the cross perform?
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
There are a couple of ways to look at this. I think point [1] sets out a sufficient substantive response, but the further remarks in points [2] and [3] are also worth noting.
[1] The good thief died under the old covenant.* so he first went to "Abraham's bosom" and was liberated by Christ immediately along with Abraham, Noah and the prophets.
*Christ was "raised for our justification," Romans 4:25. Obviously, the Resurrection had not taken place when the good thief died.
[2] This was a unique situation; it isn’t the norm for how people typically accept the Gospel (see Acts for the norm), and as such it has its limits wrt its normative or pedagogical value. For example, Jesus had not Resurrected, Ascended, or sent the Holy Spirit yet, so the Good Thief probably didn’t profess faith in these, whereas these aspects of Jesus’ mission are required for us to profess (Rom 10:9b). Even the command to “baptize all nations” wasn’t given until *after* Jesus resurrected (Matt 28:19), so pointing to this as an example of "not needing baptism" is kind of moot.
[3] The “Good Thief” is often cited as an example of getting saved by faith alone. But in fact we see a range of virtues being expressed here, including ‘Fear of the Lord’ (Lk 23:40; cf Prov 1:7), Repentance (which Jesus distinguishes from belief, see Mark 1:5), Warning Sinners (2 Thess 3:14b), Public Professing (John 10:42; Rom 10:10b), as well as Hope of going to Heaven and certainly Love for Jesus. The thief was even willing to suffer and die for his own sins, not to be freed from them, which means he carried his own cross (Lk 9:23). So this was *far from* faith alone.
Source for points [2] and [3]: https://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2018/09/the-good-thief-and-bad-protestant.html
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
In context (i.e., Ephesians 2:8-15), it's clear that Paul is speaking of works of the Mosaic law, and specifically circumcision (see emphases in pic related).
The context is plain, connected even by the use of a "therefore". The israelites saw themselves as racially more privileged than the Gentiles. The Gentiles lacked the OT sacraments; they did not have circumcision. The Gentiles were called "the uncircumcision" in a condescending way, just as Christians call the unbaptized people "pagans". The Gentiles were separated from Christ, alienated from God's family, strangers to the OT covenants, without hope, and didn't know Yahweh. That's a terribly sad position to be in. We can definitely see how boasting could creep in and need to be addressed. The israelites could brag to the Gentiles that the Gentiles weren't part of God's plan of salvation, that they weren't promised a Messiah, weren't promised forgiveness of their sins, weren't God's children, etc. And some israelites and israeli Christians were acting this way towards the Gentiles.
So what do "works" have to do with this? There's no indication here or elsewhere that the israelites were trying to live perfect lives or "earn their salvation". It is abundantly clear that most of the blessings mentioned here the israelites were born into, and had nothing to do with themselves personally earning! Rather, it is clear that the "works" here are what Paul speaks of in Eph 2:14-15 (cf Col 2:11-17), which are the Mosaic Law regulations about how to live separately from the Gentiles. The Mosaic Law was intended to create a "wall of hostility" (2:14) that kept God's people (Israel) segregated from sinful corruption of impure Gentile living. This "wall of hostility" would last until the arrival of the Messiah, who would then break down that "wall of hostility" (i.e. take away the Mosaic Law). Thus, "works" are really to point to which group of people is the privileged race, and thus "works" provided a means of boasting that you were born into a privileged family. It's kind of like how the "works" of a teenager driving around in an expensive car is a boast about how wealthy his family is. The teenager isn't bragging about how he earned the car by his own hard work.
>In context (i.e., Ephesians 2:8-15), it's clear that Paul is speaking of works of the Mosaic law, and specifically circumcision
No it isn't. These verses are as clear as could be, and you are deliberately pretending to not understand them because they contradict your pagan mindset.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>No it isn't. These verses are as clear as could be, and you are deliberately pretending to not understand them because they contradict your pagan mindset.
I set out an argument (
https://i.imgur.com/KrvUs4B.png
In context (i.e., Ephesians 2:8-15), it's clear that Paul is speaking of works of the Mosaic law, and specifically circumcision (see emphases in pic related).
The context is plain, connected even by the use of a "therefore". The israelites saw themselves as racially more privileged than the Gentiles. The Gentiles lacked the OT sacraments; they did not have circumcision. The Gentiles were called "the uncircumcision" in a condescending way, just as Christians call the unbaptized people "pagans". The Gentiles were separated from Christ, alienated from God's family, strangers to the OT covenants, without hope, and didn't know Yahweh. That's a terribly sad position to be in. We can definitely see how boasting could creep in and need to be addressed. The israelites could brag to the Gentiles that the Gentiles weren't part of God's plan of salvation, that they weren't promised a Messiah, weren't promised forgiveness of their sins, weren't God's children, etc. And some israelites and israeli Christians were acting this way towards the Gentiles.
So what do "works" have to do with this? There's no indication here or elsewhere that the israelites were trying to live perfect lives or "earn their salvation". It is abundantly clear that most of the blessings mentioned here the israelites were born into, and had nothing to do with themselves personally earning! Rather, it is clear that the "works" here are what Paul speaks of in Eph 2:14-15 (cf Col 2:11-17), which are the Mosaic Law regulations about how to live separately from the Gentiles. The Mosaic Law was intended to create a "wall of hostility" (2:14) that kept God's people (Israel) segregated from sinful corruption of impure Gentile living. This "wall of hostility" would last until the arrival of the Messiah, who would then break down that "wall of hostility" (i.e. take away the Mosaic Law). Thus, "works" are really to point to which group of people is the privileged race, and thus "works" provided a means of boasting that you were born into a privileged family. It's kind of like how the "works" of a teenager driving around in an expensive car is a boast about how wealthy his family is. The teenager isn't bragging about how he earned the car by his own hard work.
I note that your quotation skips the relevant portion of the text, where Paul makes clear that he is speaking of works of the law in this passage, specifically, circumcision:
Ephesians 2: >11 Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (which is done in the body by human hands)— 12 remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
The "boast" Paul speaks of in verse 9 is clearly an allusion to circumcision, a work of the law, not a "good work".
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
See commentary in Trent's Decree on Justification:
Mark 16:16: "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved"
Acts 2:38: "And Peter said to them, 'Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'"
Acts 2:41: "So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls."
Acts 22:16: And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.
thank you. i literally quoted this verse before and that bot anon didn't read it; nor did he read james' in its entirety. literally just cherry picking single lines to defend catholicism in the same way atheists do to demonize the word. as i said earlier, [...], what you believe will affect your actions; this is what james is going for. if your faith is genuine, a distinction made in the verse, it will reveal itself through your behavior. quite CLEARLY different than absolution and indulgences granted in the catholic church.
>nor did he read james' in its entirety. literally just cherry picking single lines to defend catholicism in the same way atheists do to demonize the word.
I quoted far more from James than you or the other guy did. One of you two quoted Luther to refute me (
no, moron. he called it an epistle of straw in comparison to the other new testament books. his point was the other books are more to the core of christ and teach you all that is necessary. i'm so sick of the quotes of things at face value so often in bible threads.
>In a word St. John’s Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and salvatory for you to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it.4
), but Luther actually made my case, as I explain here:
For Luther, the gospel = justification by faith alone.
James "has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it" because it refutes Luther's sola fide, and teaches that works are necessary. Indeed, faith without works is dead. Simple as.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>See commentary in Trent's Decree on Justification
I'd rather just read the Bible.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
That's fine. But for anyone who is interested in seeing how the Catholic Church understands that verse within its doctrine of justification, it's explained at that link.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
thank you. i literally quoted this verse before and that bot anon didn't read it; nor did he read james' in its entirety. literally just cherry picking single lines to defend catholicism in the same way atheists do to demonize the word. as i said earlier,
because if you actually read james 2, that's not the point that it's making. the point is that true faith compels you to do good deeds; they flow through one with faith. this differs from claiming to have faith and sitting idly by someone in need. this isn't to suggest though that you NEED to do catholic indulgences and absolution as some sort of meritorious working off your debts to god.
, what you believe will affect your actions; this is what james is going for. if your faith is genuine, a distinction made in the verse, it will reveal itself through your behavior. quite CLEARLY different than absolution and indulgences granted in the catholic church.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
>literally just cherry picking single lines
It's also the only time "faith alone" is mentioned in the Bible. Like God had the foresight to include this in the canon yet people will still not see the plain truth.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Isn't this clear enough? Any man who relies on his works sprouted from the will of his flesh will not be saved, because no work of his is on its own of value to God, but having faith in Jesus Christ, the only begotten son of God, those works which sprout not from his will but from God's will are fragrant and pleasing to Him since they were founded in faith in Christ and not in the man's own will. What Protestants believe is only that works without faith are dead works, and likewise faith without good works is a dead faith. Where faith is there WILL be good works. This is reflected when James says "Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only? ... For even as the body without the spirit is dead; so also faith without works is dead." Essentially this all ends in semantics, because whether you're Protestant or Catholic, we believe the same exact thing, but regardless, we love to argue over it.
(2/2
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
Will they ever address all the sects, denominations and cults that have sprung up
since the Luther?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
This was always a stupid argument. One corrupt and incorrect church with no alternatives isn't better than many denominations.
Source?
[...]
Source?
[...]
This[...]
>source
7th grade history
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Which denomination is correct
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Which denomination is correct
Don't pick a denomination, just do what the Bible says.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Which part?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
It's up for interpretation, but if your spiritual leader lives in a palace or a mansion he's probably not a good person.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>spiritual leader
Based Cult, where's the kooolAID
It's not talking about intercession--the verses right before that one (1 Timothy 2:1-4) literally command you to intercede for others, and James 5:13-15 shows elders of the Church interceding for the sick and God honoring their prayer.
As Hebrews 9:15 explains (and the rest of the chapter), Christ is the mediator of the new COVENANT, the covenant between God and man.
In the Old Testament, the High Priest acted as the mediator between God (Yaweh) and His people.
As the new High Priest, and as God in the flesh, Christ takes on that role.
It's not talking about intercession, as the Holy Spirit intercedes for us and we see intercession all over the Bible--if Christ was the only one who intercedes for us, that would contradict the verses right at the start of 1 Timothy 2 that command US to intercede for each other.
Christianity existed for 1500 years before Protestants came to shit it up. Most Christians were illiterate yet Protestants will autistically screech about sola scriptura.
[...]
[...]
I'm not arguing with a straw man. The Catholic Church made it illegal to translate the Bible into English. They did this so they could be the only people who could read the Bible. How can you confess your sins without a priest when they are the only ones who can read the Bible?
Source?
[...]
[...]
I'm not arguing with a straw man. The Catholic Church made it illegal to translate the Bible into English. They did this so they could be the only people who could read the Bible. How can you confess your sins without a priest when they are the only ones who can read the Bible?
This
Will they ever address all the sects, denominations and cults that have sprung up
since the Luther?
You are deflecting. Why did the Catholics make it illegal to translate the Bible into English other than to give themselves a monopoly on spiritual authority?
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
>monopoly on spiritual authority
What's wrong with that?
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
Because the Catholic Church is ran by humans, and humans are inherently corrupt and sinful.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
God's work on earth is through humans.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
>God's work on earth is through humans
God worked through Satan too. Should we put Satan in charge of our church?
Protecting the faith from heretics. So what?
The bible was translated and now we have 1000s of denomination.
And cults who don't believe in the trinity
And Solo Scriptura prots who believe in the trinity but the TRINITY is not in the bible.
And Solo Scriptura prots who divorce and remarry
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Churches raise money. So what?
They raised money by telling people they could buy their way into heaven.
>And cults who don't believe in the trinity
The only trinity Catholics believe in is Peter, Mary, and Pope Francis.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
people they could buy their way into heaven
What people? And so what. If they were contrite when they asked God for forgiveness then the plenary indulgence is inconsequential.
That would be like taking away your computer so you can make it to heaven since all you do is talk nonsense on IQfy, taking away your computer cancels your sinful thoughts by default. Now imagine brainlets in the future crying about the church taking away your computer in order to let you into heaven.
>God's work on earth is through humans
God worked through Satan too. Should we put Satan in charge of our church?
>the only trinity
Catholics are known to cross themselves
Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
the TRINTY that's not mentioned in the
Bible,
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
>And so what. If they were contrite when they asked God for forgiveness then the plenary indulgence is inconsequential.
Giving people false information about how to get into Heaven is disgusting.
Found the Orthodox. Always sticking out like a sore thumb, or rather always wanting to be recognized as just so different from the other Christians. Always these wild-eyed and long-haired, long-bearded guys; I guess a lot of them are former metal-heads. They must've really liked the aesthetic of the Great Schema. I bet they'd love “Death to the World”, the hip Orthodox Christian zine for Metal-Loving Teens. And don't forget Jay Dyer, always love Mr. Jay "How is there one ontological will in God, while the Persons appear to do separate actions?" Dyer. Can never forget Jay "A proto-trinitarian doctrine was already taught in Hellenism in Proclus, Plotinus, and others, including a kind of version in Philo. It is hard to accept that the Eastern Fathers were not Hellenistic as the Eastern apologists tell us, when they can’t even seem to figure out if God gave sex and human bodies as a result of the fall" Dyer. But they've moved on from metal, I suppose. Now they listen to 1 hour long Orthodox chad — I mean chant — compilations on Youtube, and participate in the beautiful, sacred tradition of sharing out-of-context quotes from old, dead, but similarly long-bearded men from hundreds of years ago in order to vicariously live out their fantasy of being a learned, intelligent, religious man, though they can't bear to argue themselves in any way except to spout platitudes, spam wojaks, and remind everyone how the Catholic church is so wrapped up in scandal, and the Protestants are so gay, but the Orthodox Church is so normal. Oh, at least the Orthodox are normal. See Brother Nathanael? See Father Spyridon? Oh, thank God the Orthodox are normal, and I can buy Father Josiah Trenham's wonderfully marketed PatristicNectar merch. But isn't it so horrible what Father Seraphim Rose said about the future of Russia?
>And now there are Protestant branches that allow you to buy your way to heaven, thanks Martin Luther!
So there are Protestant branches that are as depraved as the Catholics have always been? At least it took us 1000 years to get where you started.
Catholics will look at twitter arguments between gays and Christians and cry 1984 when the Christians get silenced, then read about what the Catholics did to the early reformers, feel their hearts filled with pride, and say "based...".
>out of context Bible quotes like it’s some kind of gotcha >again
We get tired of this. Just because those verses exist doesn’t mean we aren’t allowed to pray to Mary or the saints for intercession. Yes, Jesus is the link between man and God. No, that does not mean heavenly figures are not worth praying to. No, it does not mean we are praying to false gods. And no, nothing here contradicts itself
Can any of you actually justify praying to Mary or the saints? If Jesus is the sole mediator between us and the Father, then isn't going to Mary or anyone else entirely superfluous? Like you're trying to get a letter to the Father through Jesus, yet you're sending it first to Mary or whoever else so they can in turn send your letter along to Jesus, so he can finally send it to the Father. It just seems, if not blasphemous, a bit of a roundabout way to communicate with God.
(i) 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).
(ii) 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).
(iii) 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).
Hebrews speaks of the "cloud of witnesses" -- departed souls in heaven watching the Christians on earth who are still "running the race."
"Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses" Hebrews 12:1
Witnesses both see and hear. Do you think they watch all that is going on, and sit mute, disinterested, with no care for anything -- or do they petition the Father on behalf of those "running the race"?
Again, in Revelation the angels carry bowls full of prayers of the saints to the throne. The virgin martyrs cry out "how long", which is a prayer. Prayer means to petition. It is a channel through which we worship when talking to God and we honor when asking saints, Mary included, to intercede in prayer for us.
The saints are in heaven, alive in Christ. They can hear our prayers and intercede for us, as clearly taught in Hebrews and the Book of Revelation in particular.
Both of which explain why prayer to saints is consistent with the Bible, and the teachings of the early Church. (Of course, the Protestant doctrine of sola fide was NOT believed by the early Christians -- it was invented by Martin Luther 1500 years after the Church was founded, as discussed here:
https://i.imgur.com/IuXD60V.png
The bottom line is that Luther was honest enough to recognize that James 2 flatly contradicted his theory of sola fide -- which, moreover, was truly a new gospel and *not* a return to the teaching of the early Church.
The Anglican Alister McGrath is the leading scholar on the history of the doctrine of justification. In his book, Iustitia Dei, he famously described the classic, solely forensic Protestant understanding of justification as being a "theological novum" and a "fundamental intellectual discontinuity" in the western tradition.
In particular, he noted that "the Reformers departed from" Augustine on the question of the meaning of justification, while, by contrast, medieval theologians were "astonishingly faithful to the teaching of Augustine" on justification.
McGrath: >Augustine has an all-embracing transformative understanding of justification... >There is no hint in Augustine of any notion of justification purely in terms of ‘reputing as righteous’ or ‘treating as righteous’, as if this state of affairs could come into being without the moral or spiritual transformation of humanity through grace.
Now, in the edition of the book quoted above, McGrath suggested that Augustine may have been mistaken in his translation of the Greek word for justification (Augustine was not expert in Greek).
In the most recent edition of the book, however, McGrath now acknowledges that the early Greek Fathers' conception of justification was one of making righteous, "not as the declarative extra nos imputation conception of justification held by the Protestants"(https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2020/05/alister-mcgraths-conversion-on-justification/)
That is, the Greek Fathers had the same understanding of "justification" as Augustine did.
Thus, if "the gospel" rests on the Reformers' understanding of justification by faith alone, that is, a solely forensic/imputed justification, as distinguished from the Catholic understanding of an infused justification, that Protestant Gospel was never taught in the Church prior to the Reformers.
)
This video provides an *excellent* explanation of the Catholic doctrine of prayer to saints. It presents the Catholic view with great clarity, and soundly rebuts every Protestant objection you can think of.
Nothing in your entire post actually deals with what I asked about, neither what you said nor any of the quotes you supplied from the Bible. I never even denied the ability of angels and men to pray for us and with us, so it was a waste of time for you to try to convince me of it. Anyway, the act of personally going to Mary with prayers such as are found in many hymns seems extremely misplaced to me, as if you're spitting on Christ's sacrifice. It's not so much the act of communal prayer itself, but the content of many of these prayers which puts me off, and it seems to be a common deflection to assume anyone who questions these things is simply ignorant of the biblical stance on intercession. Both of the links to catholic.com you provided are dead, by the way. Not sure why, considering they probably worked for you when you put them in your post. I'll watch the video you linked later, though.
https://i.imgur.com/IuXD60V.png
The bottom line is that Luther was honest enough to recognize that James 2 flatly contradicted his theory of sola fide -- which, moreover, was truly a new gospel and *not* a return to the teaching of the early Church.
The Anglican Alister McGrath is the leading scholar on the history of the doctrine of justification. In his book, Iustitia Dei, he famously described the classic, solely forensic Protestant understanding of justification as being a "theological novum" and a "fundamental intellectual discontinuity" in the western tradition.
In particular, he noted that "the Reformers departed from" Augustine on the question of the meaning of justification, while, by contrast, medieval theologians were "astonishingly faithful to the teaching of Augustine" on justification.
McGrath: >Augustine has an all-embracing transformative understanding of justification... >There is no hint in Augustine of any notion of justification purely in terms of ‘reputing as righteous’ or ‘treating as righteous’, as if this state of affairs could come into being without the moral or spiritual transformation of humanity through grace.
Now, in the edition of the book quoted above, McGrath suggested that Augustine may have been mistaken in his translation of the Greek word for justification (Augustine was not expert in Greek).
In the most recent edition of the book, however, McGrath now acknowledges that the early Greek Fathers' conception of justification was one of making righteous, "not as the declarative extra nos imputation conception of justification held by the Protestants"(https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2020/05/alister-mcgraths-conversion-on-justification/)
That is, the Greek Fathers had the same understanding of "justification" as Augustine did.
Thus, if "the gospel" rests on the Reformers' understanding of justification by faith alone, that is, a solely forensic/imputed justification, as distinguished from the Catholic understanding of an infused justification, that Protestant Gospel was never taught in the Church prior to the Reformers.
Have you actually read what Luther wrote for yourself? Do you understand what the five Solas mean? Surely you're not trying to argue against something you don't understand. Sola Fide is not a doctrine that espouses the worthlessness of good works, and no learned protestant believes this, nor do they believe that Paul taught an "ethic-free" theology. What Sola Fide is, is a reminder that good works are not what will bring you salvation, but "faith" or "faith alone". What does this mean? It certainly does not mean that the faithful man will be a man who constantly disobeys God and cleaves to the will of his flesh. It's really just exactly what Paul himself said in Ephesians, "For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God; Not of works, that no man may glory. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them." >Denn aus Gnade seid ihr selig geworden durch Glauben, und das nicht aus euch: Gottes Gabe ist es, nicht aus Werken, damit sich nicht jemand rühme. Denn wir sind sein Werk, geschaffen in Christus Jesus zu guten Werken, die Gott zuvor bereitet hat, dass wir darin wandeln sollen.
(1/2)
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Nothing in your entire post actually deals with what I asked about, neither what you said nor any of the quotes you supplied from the Bible
I think the issues you raised were discussed in my post; at least, I made an honest effort to respond, perhaps I came up short. However, anyone who is interested in the subject can find further detail in the links I provided.
https://i.imgur.com/XalCtFj.png
Isn't this clear enough? Any man who relies on his works sprouted from the will of his flesh will not be saved, because no work of his is on its own of value to God, but having faith in Jesus Christ, the only begotten son of God, those works which sprout not from his will but from God's will are fragrant and pleasing to Him since they were founded in faith in Christ and not in the man's own will. What Protestants believe is only that works without faith are dead works, and likewise faith without good works is a dead faith. Where faith is there WILL be good works. This is reflected when James says "Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only? ... For even as the body without the spirit is dead; so also faith without works is dead." Essentially this all ends in semantics, because whether you're Protestant or Catholic, we believe the same exact thing, but regardless, we love to argue over it.
(2/2
I don't have any particular dispute with the text you posted. Without studying each sentence and phrase with a fine-tooth comb, I basically agree with it.
But with that said, as for Luther and sola fide, McGrath is a respected Protestant scholar; he carries a lot of weight. So, you can accuse me of not understanding sola fide, but I think it would require considerable chutzpah to charge McGrath with an equivalent ignorance.
Now in my view, the belief of the early Christians is dispositive on this question -- as it is wrt, e.g., the correct understanding of Christ's words in John 6. And when there's a disputed interpretation of the meaning of scripture - whether on the Eucharist or justification - the belief of the early Church is highly relevant, especially when that belief was universal. I think the case for the Catholic understanding of justification in scripture is strong -- and it becomes conclusive when that interpretation finds reinforcement throughout the early Church, as is the case with the Catholic understanding of justification (and the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, for that matter). Versus McGrath's conclusion that Luther's understanding of justification was *not* the belief of the early Christians, and indeed was not seen until, basically, the time of Luther.
It beggars belief that the Church could have erred on such a fundamental matter -- a matter "upon which the Church stands or falls," per Luther -- for some 1500 years.
If you think it comes down to semantics, that's fine. The nuances of your particular belief may indeed only reflect a semantic difference with Catholic belief. Truly, there is a great deal of semantics in the Catholic versus Protestant understanding of justification vs. sanctification.
But I would dispute that the Catholic-Protestant dispute over justification was, in the final analysis, *merely* a semantic dispute. Among other things, I think the difference between imputed and infused justification is kind of a big deal, to put it mildly.
These verses prove that Christianity is fundamentally the same thing as Mohammedanism no matter what conceptual or metaphysical verbiage you want to couch it in — a world-historical cargo cult centred around a powerful figure and bolstered by a millenium or more of cultural formation and ethnogenesis. Something that is not altogether unworthy of respect, but not by any means a final vehicle for ultimate truth, at least in it’s mundane normalgay form. The truth is in our age, religion is for women and untermensch, and so is atheism. For men, there is metaphysics.
I remember being 6 years old, first grade, in a Catholic school. I lost my homework assignment so the teacher gave me a little necklace of St Anthony and told me to chant "St Anthony, St Anthony, please come around / Something has been lost and cannot be found."
And apparently the spirit of St Anthony was supposed to magically make my homework appear. This is obviously a cheap superstition
I believe praying to a saint is just like asking another person to pray for you. Sure, you by no means have to, but having others pray for you is always beneficial.
>It's really like asking if I could intercede for you
Why didn't Paul just go straight to Jesus? Why did he set a rather different example, of asking for others' intercession?
“I appeal to you, brethren, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to strive together with me in your prayers to God on my behalf” Romans 15:30.
>Why didn't Paul just go straight to Jesus? Why did he set a rather different example, of asking for others' intercession?
Asking your friends to pray with you is different than asking a man who has been dead for 2000 years.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Well, you can follow your man-made tradition, I will follow the example in Revelation. And Maccabees -- which teaches the intercession of the saints in heaven, for which reason Protestants found it convenient to remove it from the canon of scripture.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Well, you can follow your man-made tradition
You're literally worshipping a mortal man lol. Paul would be disgusted by your behavior, as seen here
https://i.imgur.com/e7wNDI9.jpg
When the crowd saw what Paul had done, they shouted in the Lycaonian language, “The gods have come down to us in human form!” 12 Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul they called Hermes because he was the chief speaker. 13 The priest of Zeus, whose temple was just outside the city, brought bulls and wreaths to the city gates because he and the crowd wanted to offer sacrifices to them.
14 But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd, shouting: 15 “Friends, why are you doing this? We too are only human, like you. We are bringing you good news, telling you to turn from these worthless things to the living God, who made the heavens and the earth and the sea and everything in them.
-Acts 14
.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>You're literally worshipping a mortal man lol.
Asking another's intercession on our behalf is *not* a form of worship -- or Paul, too would be guilty of such worship by dint of his request in Romans 15:30.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Asking another's intercession on our behalf is *not* a form of worship
Saying that one person is spiritually superior to another is. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Saying that one person is spiritually superior to another is.
James does not say all are equal, but rather holds out some for a special distinction: "The prayer of a righteous man availeth much." James 5:16.
Not everyone is an Elijah, whose prayer can bring forth rain (James 5:17-18), nor can every man work the miracles of holy apostles like Peter and Paul. Yes, there are indeed persons who are "spiritually superior." The Bible makes that plain enough.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Romans 3
9 Well then, should we conclude that we israelites are better than others? No, not at all, for we have already shown that all people, whether israelites or Gentiles, are under the power of sin. 10 As the Scriptures say,
“No one is righteous—
not even one.
11 No one is truly wise;
no one is seeking God.
12 All have turned away;
all have become useless.
No one does good,
not a single one.”
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>No one is righteous— >not even one.
If no one was righteous, James's words - "The prayer of a righteous man availeth much" - would be senseless.
>The person with agape [love] in his heart is in friendship with God, and thus is righteous before God. When Abraham chose to believe God’s promise (Rom 4:3), this act not only showed that Abraham had a faith working through agape and thus was in friendship with God, but it also deepened that friendship, and so God counted it to him as righteousness. Agape fulfills the law (Rom 10:8-10), because agape is the spirit of the law. Without agape, no one is righteous in His sight. But through Christ agape is poured out into our hearts by the Holy Spirit (Rom 5:5). By this agape in our hearts, we walk in newness of life; this infused grace and agape produces the “obedience of faith” of which St. Paul speaks (Rom 1:5, 16:26). This infused grace and agape is the gift of righteousness (Rom 5:17) by which we have been “freed from sin and made slaves of righteousness” (Rom 6:18,22).
https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/07/st-augustine-on-law-and-grace/
But again: Not everyone is an Elijah, whose prayer can bring forth rain (James 5:17-18), nor can every man work the miracles of holy apostles like Peter and Paul.
And so, yes, there are indeed persons who are "spiritually superior."
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Just because God answers your prayers or allows you to perform miracles doesn't mean you are righteous or that you aew going to Heaven.
Matthew 7:22-23 ESV
On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Just because God answers your prayers or allows you to perform miracles doesn't mean you are righteous or that you aew going to Heaven.
But that truth does not abrogate this truth:
>Saying that one person is spiritually superior to another is.
James does not say all are equal, but rather holds out some for a special distinction: "The prayer of a righteous man availeth much." James 5:16.
Not everyone is an Elijah, whose prayer can bring forth rain (James 5:17-18), nor can every man work the miracles of holy apostles like Peter and Paul. Yes, there are indeed persons who are "spiritually superior." The Bible makes that plain enough.
Because the demons can perform miracles, does not mean that those few whom God empowers to perform remarkable miracles - such as Elijah, Peter and Paul - are not spiritually superior.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Elijah, Peter, and Paul were all sinners. They aren't superior to anyone. If they went to Heaven it is because God is merciful, not because they weren't sinners.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
They were great saints because of God's grace. And God objectively marked them as spiritually superior through their power to work public miracles.
Cf. Acts 14:3: Therefore they spent a long time there speaking boldly with reliance upon the Lord, who was testifying to the word of His grace, granting that signs and wonders be performed by their hands.
Acts 6:8: Now Stephen, a man full of God’s grace and power, performed great wonders and signs among the people.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>boldly with reliance upon the Lord >a man full of God’s grace and power
Again this seems to me that the glory is going to God specifically and not the persons
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>the glory is going to God specifically and not the persons
Correct. God literally used a talking donkey to convey a message once.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>spiritually superior.
Very ugly term.
Matt. 23:12
And he who will exalt himself shall be humbled, and he who will humble himself shall be exalted.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
The spiritually superior are indeed humble -- they don't hold themselves out as superior. But in some cases we have objective evidence of certain persons being graced with very special graces indeed, not given to all, such as the power to work miracles.
And again, however ungainly the term "spiritually superior" (and I agree it's an ungainly phrase, but I did not coin it, but rather simply used it to respond to the one who did), James 5:16 implies a distinction -- implies degrees of righteousness that are greater in some than in others.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>The spiritually superior are indeed humble
Then why does the Pope sit on a throne surrounded by gold and live in a palace?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
God commanded the Israelites to build and adorn the Temple in Jerusalem with precious metals and israeliteels in order for man to acknowledge the majesty and importance of God. Christians, especially after Roman imperial legalization in A.D. 313, continued the Old Testament practice of making beautiful objects and building ornate sacred spaces for the liturgy.
Re liturgical vestments, see: https://www.catholic.com/qa/do-priests-vestments-contradict-scripture
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
There's a big difference between ostentation oriented towards the aggrandizement of men and that which is for the exaltation of God. The Protestant man cannot comprehend this.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>There's a big difference between ostentation oriented towards the aggrandizement of men and that which is for the exaltation of God.
How does building staues of men, then kneeling and praying to them like in this picture
https://i.imgur.com/ph40mhM.jpg
Exodus 20:2
4 You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.
5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me
exalt God?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>God commanded the Israelites to build and adorn the Temple in Jerusalem with precious metals and israeliteels in order for man to acknowledge the majesty and importance of God.
The temple was a place to house the Holy Spirit, but now the Holy Spirit resides in all of us, making it superfluous.
1st Corinthians 6:19
Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God?
Furthermore it's pretty hypocritical of you to obey some Old Testament commands when you probably don't obey others. I'm assuming you eat pork and don't perform animal sacrifice?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>The temple was a place to house the Holy Spirit, but now the Holy Spirit resides in all of us, making it superfluous.
You impose a meaning on that text that by no means follows from the text itself. Where does the NT prohibit the building of Churches, as it expressly abrogates the OT dietary laws (Acts 10:15), and ceremonial laws (Galatians 5-6)? Where does it say Churches must be built as, say, austere wooden buildings?
The Last Supper was a liturgical act. It follows that liturgy is fundamental to Christian worship, and the use of liturgical vestments is biblical.
>Furthermore it's pretty hypocritical of you to obey some Old Testament commands when you probably don't obey others. I'm assuming you eat pork and don't perform animal sacrifice?
It's not hypocrisy. Here is a Protestant defense of the viability of the moral law of the OT: https://www.ligonier.org/learn/qas/what-parts-of-the-law-are-still-relevant-today
You sound like an antinomian, as defined in that article. I don't think such an understanding of the OT is sound.
There's a big difference between ostentation oriented towards the aggrandizement of men and that which is for the exaltation of God. The Protestant man cannot comprehend this.
>There's a big difference between ostentation oriented towards the aggrandizement of men and that which is for the exaltation of God.
You see ostentation, but the Catholic understanding of liturgical vestments is quite different, as explained here: https://www.catholic.com/qa/do-priests-vestments-contradict-scripture
>The Protestant man cannot comprehend this.
Fair enough. But there are plenty of Protestants who wear liturgical garments, also. And build beautiful churches. It may not be to your taste; it may offend your sensibilities; you may think it's flat-out wrong. But it's not just Catholics who do such things, but Protestants also.
Catholic statues - starting with the Crucifix found on every Catholic altar - are instruments for focusing the mind and facilitating prayer. God commanded the building of statues for liturgical use in the OT, and a graven image to be made for purposes of healing. (Why not just heal directly? Why the graven image?)
The Catholic understanding is explained here: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/so-catholics-worship-statues
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Where does the NT prohibit the building of Churches
Follow the example of Christ. Jesus and Paul held church on hills and in people's houses. If Jesus didn't feel it was necessary to surround himself with gold and israeliteels, why should you?
>It's not hypocrisy. Here is a Protestant defense of the viability of the moral law of the OT
So if you want temples because the israelites had them in the OT are you preforming animal sacrifice in them like the israelites did, too?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Percy Wetmore, is that you?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
You argue like girlfriend after she's had a couple of glasses of wine.
Your rebuttals hint that you go surface deep at best, when developing a line of argument. Irritational emotion instead of inquisitive study causes this IMO.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Irritational emotion
You insulted me instead of disputing either of my points. If anyone is emotional here it is you.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Catholic statues - starting with the Crucifix found on every Catholic altar - are instruments for focusing the mind and facilitating prayer
Is God really so weak that you need idols just to contact him? Can he not hear you normally?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>But through Christ agape is poured out into our hearts by the Holy Spirit
This seems to be the crux of the matter. The person in question is not superior, but has Christ's love in his heart. The person in his own self is dead in his offenses, ergo, not righteous.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>The person in his own self is dead in his offenses, ergo, not righteous.
Ah, here we see Luther's sick understanding of sola fide -- that strange belief that no one in the Church believed for its first 1500 years.
To wit, Luther's perverse understanding of imputed righteousness, versus the true biblical doctrine of infused righteousness.
But you correctly point to the crux: "God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 5:5).
That's what the Bible teaches, and that's what I - and the early Church - believe.
Luther's imputed righteousness is a man-made tradition, unknown in the first 1500 years of the Church.
Again, it beggars belief that the Church could have erred on such a fundamental matter -- a matter "upon which the Church stands or falls," per Luther -- for some 1500 years.
But passions run strong in these matters -- strong enough to override the plain meaning of scripture in favor of a very late, man-made tradition.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Can you clarify the terms imputed righteousness and infused righteousness?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
I'll try. I'm writing this on the fly:
Quick version is: "Imputed" = "declared"; "infused" = "poured into".
We as Catholics believe that God *does* declare us to be righteous, but God's word is effective, so it actually *causes us* to become righteous.
Per Wikipedia, Luther asserted that Christians receive Christ's righteousness entirely from outside themselves; that righteousness not only comes from Christ, it actually is the righteousness of Christ, and *remains outside of us but is merely imputed to us* (rather than infused into us) through faith.
Explanation by Lutheran pastor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-W56OxrKm5E&ab_channel=Dr.JordanBCooper
Explanation by a convert to Catholicism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amAwaX8nqKI&ab_channel=ThePristineFaith
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
I'll have to research further into it. From my understanding scripture tells us to "die to self" and put our old man to death and be crucified with Christ, then to receive Christ's life which then transforms and glorifies us. This all seems consistent with our flesh being under condemnation and that we can do no good without God.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>I'll have to research further into it.
Fair enough. I would just note that scripture does speak of putting off the old man, but also of putting on the new man.
Ephesians 4:
22 You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; 23 to be made new in the attitude of your minds; 24 and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.
In the language of Trent, justification is understood "as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam [1 Cor 15:22], Jesus Christ, our Saviour."
"Beloved, we are God's children now," 1 John 3:2
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
This is entirely consistent with what I've learned at a Protestant church. >it is no longer I who live but Him that lives in me
I'm not sure what the disconnect is then. My vague familiarity with Protestant theology includes the statement "Total Depravity" which as a doctrine seems entirely consistent with the idea the world is fallen and of the doctrine of original sin. What do Catholics state which includes the excerpt of Ephesians 4 but excludes the idea what Luther teaches?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>love >spirit of the law
Libidinality and venality (love and the spirit of the law) are the pillars of paganism. Pagan Gods do nothing but swoon over each other as they exchange words, wills, appearances, etc. One can easily identify the most refined Vatican doctrine, Atheism, in its Anglo actuality, as nothing but venality (Materialism) and libidinality (a necessary obverse of vulgar emotionalism; note the insufferable Anglo humor, romanticism, and most of all the fabrication of "desires", "drives", "instincts", etc. as integral to Empiricism as it is to mercantile subhumanity).
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
1 Cor. 12:23
And those members of the body which we consider to be less honorable, these we clothe with more abundant honor; and our uncomely members come to have more abundant comeliness,
1 Cor. 12:24
But our comely members have no need. But God has blended the body together, giving more abundant honor to the member that lacked,
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Even the most righteous human on Earth is still a sinner who is destined for Hell. It is only by the grace of God you are saved.
It's really like asking if I could intercede for you or make atonement for your sin. I can't and you shouldn't even ask. Matthew 25: 1 - 13
>I believe praying to a saint is just like asking another person to pray for you.
Would you be comfortable praying to Socrates or Buddha? All humans are sinners, Elijah, Moses, Mary, and Peter have no more spiritual authority than any other human being who has existed.
>St. Paul tells us that the believers who are still alive at the Second Coming will be changed in an instant from an earthly corruptible body to a heavenly body. St. Thomas says this will occur through Christ’s glorification of the souls of the blessed. The glory will flow from the souls into the bodies and raise them up to a heavenly body. Pope Pius XII declared in his apostolic constitution, Munificentissimus Deus in 1950 that the Blessed Virgin Mary already has undergone this sea-change to an immortal heavenly body and was assumed into heaven at the end of her life.
And some Catholics also say she never even died.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Pope Pius XII declared in his apostolic constitution, Munificentissimus Deus in 1950 that the Blessed Virgin Mary already has undergone this sea-change to an immortal heavenly body
Which book of the Bible is this in, exactly?
God used them to perform great deeds but they were all regular people, and all of them sinned at some point in their lives. Elijah and Peter both fled from God out of fear, Moses angered God so much he killed him before he could enter the Promised Land. Paul and David were murderers, Solomon worshiped pagan gods, etc.
The idea of taking one’s problems “right to Jesus” is surely not to be understood in the sense of forgoing the mediating prayer of others. It is not as though the unique mediation of Jesus our Lord (1 Timothy 2:5) excludes certain saints from mediating on behalf of other saints, and various Gospel stories are the proof of this principle. This is called intercessory prayer, and the Gospels give us some understanding how it “works.”
For instance, we may look at Luke’s version of the story of the Centurion, who pleads for his servant (Luke 7:1–10). First, the centurion himself does not approach Jesus directly. He sends some friends who will speak for him. Now this is interesting, because it introduces another level of mediation. The friends are interceding for the centurion, who is in turn interceding for his servant. We have here the beginnings of a prayer chain, as it were.
Then, when Jesus starts moving towards the centurion’s home, the latter dispatches another group of friends, who will speak the famous words that characterize this story: “I am not worthy that You should enter under my roof” (7:6). It is surely significant that the centurion does not speak these words, deeply personal as they are, to Jesus directly. Others say them to Jesus on the centurion’s behalf.
In Luke’s version of the story, in fact, there is no face-to-face encounter of the centurion with Jesus at all. The centurion’s faith is conveyed by those he chooses to intercede for him.
As an account of a person beseeching the Lord on behalf of someone else, this shared narrative resembles other stories in the Gospels, such as Jairus and the Syro-Phoenician woman praying for their daughters (Mark 5:23; 7:24–30), another man and a centurion pleading for their sons (9:17; John 4:46–53), Martha and Mary of Bethany interceding for their brother (11:3). These are all accounts of petitionary prayer on behalf of loved ones. Such stories surely had a great influence on the patterns of Christian intercessory prayer.
>For instance, we may look at Luke’s version of the story of the Centurion, who pleads for his servant (Luke 7:1–10). First, the centurion himself does not approach Jesus directly. He sends some friends who will speak for him.
If only there was some way we could speak directly to God whenever we wanted...
Nowhere in the Bible does it say to pray to saints or the dead for intercession. At multiple points it says to pray to God
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
The Bible encourages us to ask others to pray for us, and that necessarily includes the saints in heaven, who are seen in Revelation interceding for the saints on earth.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Rev. 22:8
And I John am he who hears and sees these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell to worship before the feet of the angel who showed me these things.
Rev. 22:9
And he said to me, Do not do that! I am your fellow slave and a fellow slave of your brothers the prophets and of those who keep the words of this scroll. Worship God.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
See:
>You're literally worshipping a mortal man lol.
Asking another's intercession on our behalf is *not* a form of worship -- or Paul, too would be guilty of such worship by dint of his request in Romans 15:30.
>It's really like asking if I could intercede for you
Why didn't Paul just go straight to Jesus? Why did he set a rather different example, of asking for others' intercession?
“I appeal to you, brethren, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to strive together with me in your prayers to God on my behalf” Romans 15:30.
Now go drink your milk
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
When the crowd saw what Paul had done, they shouted in the Lycaonian language, “The gods have come down to us in human form!” 12 Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul they called Hermes because he was the chief speaker. 13 The priest of Zeus, whose temple was just outside the city, brought bulls and wreaths to the city gates because he and the crowd wanted to offer sacrifices to them.
14 But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd, shouting: 15 “Friends, why are you doing this? We too are only human, like you. We are bringing you good news, telling you to turn from these worthless things to the living God, who made the heavens and the earth and the sea and everything in them.
-Acts 14
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Zeus and Hermes?
So Paul's not a Greek god?
Very insightful.
>they tore their clothes
Would a Lutherite consider that a "Work" ?
Tearing ones clothes off and running into a crowd sounds like a work.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Paul obviously didn't want to be worshipped when he was alive, so why are you worshipping him now that he is dead? Not only are you sinning, you are doing what Paul specifically asked people not to do.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
What denomination is worshipping Paul?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
The one that builds statues like this
https://i.imgur.com/e7wNDI9.jpg
When the crowd saw what Paul had done, they shouted in the Lycaonian language, “The gods have come down to us in human form!” 12 Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul they called Hermes because he was the chief speaker. 13 The priest of Zeus, whose temple was just outside the city, brought bulls and wreaths to the city gates because he and the crowd wanted to offer sacrifices to them.
14 But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd, shouting: 15 “Friends, why are you doing this? We too are only human, like you. We are bringing you good news, telling you to turn from these worthless things to the living God, who made the heavens and the earth and the sea and everything in them.
-Acts 14
. It is clearly worship, as defined here
https://i.imgur.com/ph40mhM.jpg
Exodus 20:2
4 You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.
5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me
.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>It is clearly worship
Really? Is portraiture worship to you as well? Or indeed any artistic expression whatsoever? >as defined here
I guess the Ark of the Covenant was sacrilegious as well for having Cherubs on it. Lol. You people are a complete joke, claiming we are beholden to Mosaic Law (already fulfilled by the Messiah) like a bunch of israelites.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>You people are a complete joke, claiming we are beholden to Mosaic Law (already fulfilled by the Messiah) like a bunch of israelites.
So you don't follow the Ten Commandments? I suppose that explains why Catholics murdered so many people...
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
If you get on your knees and pray to a statue, believing there's some kind of life or spirit in the statue, then that's idolatry and contradicted by Scripture
Psa. 115:4
Their idols are mere silver and gold,
The work of human hands.
Psa. 115:5
They have mouths, but they do not speak;
They have eyes, but they do not see.
Psa. 115:6
They have ears, but they do not hear;
They have noses, but they do not smell.
Psa. 115:7
They have hands, but they do not feel;
They have feet, but they do not walk;
They make no sound in their throat.
Psa. 115:8
Those who make them,
All who trust in them,
Are like them.
I think as Christians we are better off avoiding images and icons altogether
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Check out this icon
ACTS 19:11-12
Rags don't speak or have eyes, work of human hands
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Yeah thats definitely a different matter. I think the Reformers were definitely right to be upset about the proliferation of supposed relics and how they were used superstitiously. However Scripture clearly said that things like Paul's handkerchief did something. But I think for the subject of icons specifically, a bunch of little statues and candles on a table don't really achieve anything and we're better off avoiding that kind of thing.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>However Scripture clearly said that things like Paul's handkerchief did something.
God did something, not Paul or his handkerchief. That's like saying Samson's hair gave him superhuman strength, or Moses' staff let him part the sea.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Read this chapter, especially paragraphs 14 to 18
https://thebookofconcord.org/apology-of-the-augsburg-confession/article-xxi/
The basic argument is that when you pray to a Saint for intercession you're basically saying that person has the authority to offer forgiveness of sins, which is idolatry
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
John 20:23
Gonna have to ask a spiritual leader about this verse. Very complex
The one that builds statues like this [...]. It is clearly worship, as defined here [...].
Ezekiel 41:17-25
About a temple with images?
So if we don't worship them then they're alright ?
It seems the Catholic Church lives rent free in the minds of every other denomination.
That's an attractive quality that the Catholic Church has going for it
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>About a temple with images?
Images of what? God and Jesus or humans?
>It seems the Catholic Church lives rent free in the minds of every other denomination. That's an attractive quality that the Catholic Church has going for it.
Thanks to the Catholic Church whenever people think of Christians they think of pedophiles, so thanks for that.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>"This"
Well, of course that's the correct answer, but note the post that remark was given in response to:
It's really like asking if I could intercede for you or make atonement for your sin. I can't and you shouldn't even ask. Matthew 25: 1 - 13
*I'm* not the one who said we "shouldn't even ask" someone else to intercede for us.
4 You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.
5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me
They already ignore the baptism where God, Jesus, and Holy Spirit all do different things, as different and separate beings.
The trinity doesn't make sense and is just monotheistic israeli cope.
the same scholars that invent a q source to explain things rather than paying attention to things like congruency in luke and john. same scholars that think greek couldn't have been known even though it's extremely evident that 2000 years ago it wasn't a mono lingual civilization. i'm done accepting "consensus" of these clowns and timothy was likely done by a scribe while paul was imprisoned.
WHAT IS THERE TO «COPE» ABOUT?
THIS THREAD IS OFF TOPIC.
one mediator, Christ, not Mary , not a million saints, one.
ALL THE ANGELS, AND ARCHANGELS, AND ALL THE SAINTS, INCLUDING THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY, ARE MEDIATORS TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY ARE INTERCESSORS: THEY ALL INTERCEDE FOR HUMANS BEFORE GOD THE FATHER VIA GOD THE SON.
Which verse is that?
?
That anon was asking for the scriptural reference for that belief.
NO; HE WAS BEING DISINGENUOUS, AVOIDING THE ARGUMENT BY IMPLYING THAT WHAT IS NOT EXPLICIT IN THE HOLY BIBLE IS INVALID.
yeah, I'm going to need 2 witnesses that aren't your pope and some rainbow sash wearing homosexual
>AVOIDING THE ARGUMENT BY IMPLYING THAT WHAT IS NOT EXPLICIT IN THE HOLY BIBLE IS INVALID
are Catholics moronic?
>no you don't understand, we've been making shit up for a really long time so that means it's legit
The omniscience and omnipotence of God makes all of that irrelevant. That's one thing that Muslims and, to a lesser extent, Pr*testants got right.
But Paul says Christians should pray for each other, none of that changes Christs role as the sole mediator
Your question has left ambiguity in what the subject actually is and thats why Catholics are able to perform their mental gymnastics.
There are no verses in Scripture which command us to pray to the dead for us. It doesn't appear that there's really any verses that explicitly say not to, but we can reason our way through it.
Scripture is very clear when it says to pray to God directly in all matters (John 16:23). Why then should we pray to anyone or anything else? Do you mean to say they have any power that Christ does not? Is a saint's mercy more important than Christ's? You're falling into idolatry.
The Concordia cites contemporary Gabriel Biel that we can be saved by the merits of the saints. This is clearly contrary to Scripture which tells us salvation comes to us from Christ. A medieval absolution rite cites the merits of Mary and the saints for the forgiveness of sins.
There's the further view that certain saints have certain duties, like my example of praying to St Anthony to find lost homework. This is more pagan superstition.
The medieval era also had severe iconography. Images were thought to actually possess spiritual forces. Again, superstitious and non scriptural.
The section on this subject in the Concordia is absolutely worth reading because it clarifies the issue at hand and adds the historical context of the complaint.
WHY ARE YOU SHOUTING
And what kind of Christian name is "cumgenius" anyway?
This is why we badly need a theology board so IQfy can be for literature and IQfy can be for history again.
namegay
where does the holy spirit fit in, TIMOTHY?
>How do Catholics cope with these two verses?
They read the verses in context.
None of the verses in this infographic correlate with what you are trying to say. How can the clergy and the saints be "united to and participatory" with Jesus Christ when the Bible explicitly says they are not. Jesus and God want you to have a personal relationship with them, they don't want a human to get in the way of your relationship with them.
Explain Timothy 2:1-2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercession
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/one-mediator-between-god-and-men
There's a huge difference between praying for someone and insisting that all prayers have to go through you. Show me a single verse where the Bible discourages people from interacting directly with God.
You're arguing with a straw man.
I'm not arguing with a straw man. The Catholic Church made it illegal to translate the Bible into English. They did this so they could be the only people who could read the Bible. How can you confess your sins without a priest when they are the only ones who can read the Bible?
You are arguing with a strawman, no Catholics think that all prayers have to go through particularly Mary and you know this. Why be disingenuous? You should point out the verse where Christ says to only pray to the father in heaven
Catholics don't claim you "need" to ask for intercession, only that it's good to do so. Most of our prayers are direct prayer, not intercession. It's not either "all direct prayer" or "all intercession," you can and should do both, because the prayers of the righteous availeth much.
>How can the clergy and the saints be "united to and participatory" with Jesus Christ when the Bible explicitly says they are not.
On the contrary, the Bible explicitly says that they are -- whenever Christians pray for one another, as Paul COMMANDS us to do, Christians are acting as intercessors.
And to be an intercessor is a mediating role.
Now, this does not subvert 1 Tm 2:5 -- it is all of a piece. For 1 Tm 2:5 is preceded by 1 Tm 2:1-2: "I urge, then... that petitions, prayers, intercession... be made for all men."
1 Tm 2, in turn, accords with Paul's exposition of the nature of the church in 1 Cor 12:28. Paul does NOT say go straight to God and Jesus, ONLY. Rather, we are to go to apostles, teachers, etc., i.e., those placed into mediating roles.
In a similar way, Jesus is the “chief” Shepherd of His flock (John 10:11–16; 1 Peter 5:4), yet He assigns lesser shepherds to take part in this ministry (John 21:15–17; Ephesians 4:11). That’s what the word “pastor” means.
In 1 Timothy 2:1-2, Paul calls for intercession for all people. This has nothing to do with there being more than one mediator. I've noticed that Anglo philistines, ultimately a Catholic position given that Materialism is a Vatican original, quite literally cannot read, and seem to freely interchange prepositions for one another: "intercession and thanks-giving be made FOR all people" in this case could be read as "intercession [...] THROUGH all people" by the Catholic. This is why Anglos cannot read Hegel, by the way. In 1 Corinthians 12:28, Paul says that the Church contains many kinds of people, neither of which are mediators. The subsequent conclusion is absurd. If all other mediatorship is forbidden, it follows that said categories can be kept as whatever they are, except mediatorship.
>quite literally cannot read, and seem to freely interchange prepositions for one another: "intercession and thanks-giving be made FOR all people" in this case could be read as "intercession [...] THROUGH all people" by the Catholic.
One intercedes FOR someone, but the intercession itself is made THROUGH the one who is doing the interceding.
And if you seek to impose a highly dubious hard-line distinction between the meaning of "mediation" and "intercession," that's fine from a Catholic POV.
For all Catholic prayers that allegedly transgress 1 Tm 2:5-6 fall on the "intercession" side of the (supposed) intercession-mediation line.
Thus, if you prefer, you can say that St. Peter "interceded" in healing the Temple cripple, rather than acting as a mediator between the cripple and God (although it is a distinction without a difference).
https://thebookofconcord.org/apology-of-the-augsburg-confession/article-xxi/
That would just mean that saints, apostles and clergy are good, but not necessary, and a man's faith in God can do without them. That idea makes Catholics seethe - as they postulate that the Holy Church is not participatory to the mediation, but absolutely necessary.
I would rather find out how Christians cope with Genesis 19:
[30] And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.
[31] And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:
[32] Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
[33] And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
[34] And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our Father.
[35] And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
[36] Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.
Lot paid the consequence of being weak. He established himself in a morally corrupt area, became materialistic and lost his wife when she turned around to look for what she left behind. He needed to be carried outside the city by the angels and tried to bargain with God about where he was supposed to go.
What a cope. That literally has nothing to do with his daughters getting him drunk and having sex with him, impregnating themselves with their biological father's sperm.
It was meant to show that the Moabites were the product of an incestuous relationship, thus making any claims they had to land illegitimate. Were you raised in a fundamentalist household or something?
Why did Paul circumcise Timothy?
Timothy wanted to be circumcised so israelites would like him more and be more likely to convert to Christianity.
A bit of an odd thing to do to make israelites like you? Wasn't Jesus plenty?
Why was Timothy showing off his dick?
The synagogues had ritual baths for purifying yourself before entering and if you pulled out an uncircumcised dick they would notice.
Just like in the korean spa 🙁
How do Protestants cope with Luke 1:43 (says Mary is the Mother of God) and James 2:24 (says faith alone is false)
Luther wanted to get rid of the book of James?
>INSISTING that all prayers HAVE to go through you.
Your hyper sensitivity (exaggerating with words like "insist" and phrases like "have to") or lack of reading comprehension has to be dealt with. Are you on an ESL island?
because if you actually read james 2, that's not the point that it's making. the point is that true faith compels you to do good deeds; they flow through one with faith. this differs from claiming to have faith and sitting idly by someone in need. this isn't to suggest though that you NEED to do catholic indulgences and absolution as some sort of meritorious working off your debts to god.
This
>the point is that true faith compels you to do good deeds; they flow through one with faith.
Luther understood James correctly: James 2 contradicts Luther's theory that we're saved by faith alone. That's why Luther called James an epistle of straw.
no, moron. he called it an epistle of straw in comparison to the other new testament books. his point was the other books are more to the core of christ and teach you all that is necessary. i'm so sick of the quotes of things at face value so often in bible threads.
>In a word St. John’s Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and salvatory for you to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it.4
For Luther, the gospel = justification by faith alone.
James "has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it" because it refutes Luther's sola fide, and teaches that works are necessary. Indeed, faith without works is dead. Simple as.
you're doing it again. read here
.
Luther understood the import of James 2 -- it absolutely conflicts with sola fide. Your strained eisegesis doesn't change that, no matter how many times you repeat it.
you're doing what atheists do and look at a single quote at face value. read the entire passage. this isn't a ledger of good deeds as meritorious lest no man should boast; james is making the point that if you truly have faith, you will help that person with food or warmth in passing. you won't stand by and say "Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body". read ephesians 2:8-10:
> For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
the matter of salvation is quite clear if you read the james passage as a whole instead of cherry pick one fricking line.
>the matter of salvation is quite clear
Repent, be baptized, and give the Catholic Church lots of money.
>“To make war against the Pope is to make war against God, seeing the Pope is God, and God is the Pope.” -Moreri's History.
>"The leader of the Catholic church is defined by the faith as the Vicar of Jesus Christ (and is accepted as such by believers). The Pope is considered the man on earth who takes the place of the Second Person of the omnipotent God of the Trinity." (John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, p. 3, 1994).
>"The Pope is not simply the representative of Jesus Christ. On the contrary, he is Jesus Christ Himself, under the veil of the flesh, and who by means of a being common to humanity continues His ministry amongst men ... Does the Pope speak? It is Jesus Christ Who is speaking. -Evangelical Christendom, January 1, 1895, pg. 15, published in London by J. S. Phillips.
protestants have their own problems, sure, but defending catholicism at this point is insane.
The bottom line is that Luther was honest enough to recognize that James 2 flatly contradicted his theory of sola fide -- which, moreover, was truly a new gospel and *not* a return to the teaching of the early Church.
The Anglican Alister McGrath is the leading scholar on the history of the doctrine of justification. In his book, Iustitia Dei, he famously described the classic, solely forensic Protestant understanding of justification as being a "theological novum" and a "fundamental intellectual discontinuity" in the western tradition.
In particular, he noted that "the Reformers departed from" Augustine on the question of the meaning of justification, while, by contrast, medieval theologians were "astonishingly faithful to the teaching of Augustine" on justification.
McGrath:
>Augustine has an all-embracing transformative understanding of justification...
>There is no hint in Augustine of any notion of justification purely in terms of ‘reputing as righteous’ or ‘treating as righteous’, as if this state of affairs could come into being without the moral or spiritual transformation of humanity through grace.
Now, in the edition of the book quoted above, McGrath suggested that Augustine may have been mistaken in his translation of the Greek word for justification (Augustine was not expert in Greek).
In the most recent edition of the book, however, McGrath now acknowledges that the early Greek Fathers' conception of justification was one of making righteous, "not as the declarative extra nos imputation conception of justification held by the Protestants"(https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2020/05/alister-mcgraths-conversion-on-justification/)
That is, the Greek Fathers had the same understanding of "justification" as Augustine did.
Thus, if "the gospel" rests on the Reformers' understanding of justification by faith alone, that is, a solely forensic/imputed justification, as distinguished from the Catholic understanding of an infused justification, that Protestant Gospel was never taught in the Church prior to the Reformers.
if james contradicts the idea of sola fide, then james defies paul's teachings. i believe they compliment each other and thus catholic absolution and indulgences are bullshit and luther is absolutely correct. i'm not even going to read the rest of your post.
rebel spirit and a filthy tongue.
Luther would be proud
Jesus was a rebel too.
According to the Sanhedrin
The Sanhedrin was the Catholic Church of Jesus' time.
>if james contradicts the idea of sola fide, then james defies paul's teachings.
But Paul never says we're saved by faith alone. Indeed, he never speaks of "faith alone." The only place the phrase "faith alone" is found in the NT is in James 2, which teaches that "a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone."
“Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?” (James 2:21)
“And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?” (James 2:25)
Mind you, James is *not* saying that works, apart from faith, save. But rather that faith is “completed by works” (James 2:22), and insufficient in itself.
There are several places, as well, where Paul makes clear that he did not believe in the Protestant notion of sola fide, e.g., when he says that even if your faith is STRONG ENOUGH TO MOVE MOUNTAINS, it is useless if you have not love:
>If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.
1 Corinthians 13.
Thus he refutes the Protestant sola fide theory in 1 Corinthians 13, and also in Galatians:
>"The only thing that matters is faith working in love." Galatians 5:6
Again, Paul NEVER speaks of salvation through "faith alone." And he never uses the phrase "faith alone," although there are many places in his writings where it would have been quite natural for him to say that, if that's what he believed, or if that's what he wanted to teach.
And although it's your prerogative as to whether you choose to read the rest of my post, what's included there is quite important to this discussion because it goes to the issue of what the early Church believed on this subject. And it is 100% clear that the early Church did NOT believe that Paul taught sola fide.
>"a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone."
What works did the thief on the cross perform?
There are a couple of ways to look at this. I think point [1] sets out a sufficient substantive response, but the further remarks in points [2] and [3] are also worth noting.
[1] The good thief died under the old covenant.* so he first went to "Abraham's bosom" and was liberated by Christ immediately along with Abraham, Noah and the prophets.
*Christ was "raised for our justification," Romans 4:25. Obviously, the Resurrection had not taken place when the good thief died.
[2] This was a unique situation; it isn’t the norm for how people typically accept the Gospel (see Acts for the norm), and as such it has its limits wrt its normative or pedagogical value. For example, Jesus had not Resurrected, Ascended, or sent the Holy Spirit yet, so the Good Thief probably didn’t profess faith in these, whereas these aspects of Jesus’ mission are required for us to profess (Rom 10:9b). Even the command to “baptize all nations” wasn’t given until *after* Jesus resurrected (Matt 28:19), so pointing to this as an example of "not needing baptism" is kind of moot.
[3] The “Good Thief” is often cited as an example of getting saved by faith alone. But in fact we see a range of virtues being expressed here, including ‘Fear of the Lord’ (Lk 23:40; cf Prov 1:7), Repentance (which Jesus distinguishes from belief, see Mark 1:5), Warning Sinners (2 Thess 3:14b), Public Professing (John 10:42; Rom 10:10b), as well as Hope of going to Heaven and certainly Love for Jesus. The thief was even willing to suffer and die for his own sins, not to be freed from them, which means he carried his own cross (Lk 9:23). So this was *far from* faith alone.
Source for points [2] and [3]: https://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2018/09/the-good-thief-and-bad-protestant.html
In context (i.e., Ephesians 2:8-15), it's clear that Paul is speaking of works of the Mosaic law, and specifically circumcision (see emphases in pic related).
The context is plain, connected even by the use of a "therefore". The israelites saw themselves as racially more privileged than the Gentiles. The Gentiles lacked the OT sacraments; they did not have circumcision. The Gentiles were called "the uncircumcision" in a condescending way, just as Christians call the unbaptized people "pagans". The Gentiles were separated from Christ, alienated from God's family, strangers to the OT covenants, without hope, and didn't know Yahweh. That's a terribly sad position to be in. We can definitely see how boasting could creep in and need to be addressed. The israelites could brag to the Gentiles that the Gentiles weren't part of God's plan of salvation, that they weren't promised a Messiah, weren't promised forgiveness of their sins, weren't God's children, etc. And some israelites and israeli Christians were acting this way towards the Gentiles.
So what do "works" have to do with this? There's no indication here or elsewhere that the israelites were trying to live perfect lives or "earn their salvation". It is abundantly clear that most of the blessings mentioned here the israelites were born into, and had nothing to do with themselves personally earning! Rather, it is clear that the "works" here are what Paul speaks of in Eph 2:14-15 (cf Col 2:11-17), which are the Mosaic Law regulations about how to live separately from the Gentiles. The Mosaic Law was intended to create a "wall of hostility" (2:14) that kept God's people (Israel) segregated from sinful corruption of impure Gentile living. This "wall of hostility" would last until the arrival of the Messiah, who would then break down that "wall of hostility" (i.e. take away the Mosaic Law). Thus, "works" are really to point to which group of people is the privileged race, and thus "works" provided a means of boasting that you were born into a privileged family. It's kind of like how the "works" of a teenager driving around in an expensive car is a boast about how wealthy his family is. The teenager isn't bragging about how he earned the car by his own hard work.
Source: https://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2020/01/not-by-works-so-that-no-one-may-boast.html
>In context (i.e., Ephesians 2:8-15), it's clear that Paul is speaking of works of the Mosaic law, and specifically circumcision
No it isn't. These verses are as clear as could be, and you are deliberately pretending to not understand them because they contradict your pagan mindset.
>No it isn't. These verses are as clear as could be, and you are deliberately pretending to not understand them because they contradict your pagan mindset.
I set out an argument (
), you've made an assertion not a refutation.
I note that your quotation skips the relevant portion of the text, where Paul makes clear that he is speaking of works of the law in this passage, specifically, circumcision:
Ephesians 2:
>11 Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (which is done in the body by human hands)— 12 remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
The "boast" Paul speaks of in verse 9 is clearly an allusion to circumcision, a work of the law, not a "good work".
See commentary in Trent's Decree on Justification:
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/decree-concerning-justification--decree-concerning-reform-1496
"The washing of regeneration" = baptism.
Mark 16:16: "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved"
Acts 2:38: "And Peter said to them, 'Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'"
Acts 2:41: "So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls."
Acts 22:16: And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.
>nor did he read james' in its entirety. literally just cherry picking single lines to defend catholicism in the same way atheists do to demonize the word.
I quoted far more from James than you or the other guy did. One of you two quoted Luther to refute me (
), but Luther actually made my case, as I explain here:
>See commentary in Trent's Decree on Justification
I'd rather just read the Bible.
That's fine. But for anyone who is interested in seeing how the Catholic Church understands that verse within its doctrine of justification, it's explained at that link.
.
thank you. i literally quoted this verse before and that bot anon didn't read it; nor did he read james' in its entirety. literally just cherry picking single lines to defend catholicism in the same way atheists do to demonize the word. as i said earlier,
, what you believe will affect your actions; this is what james is going for. if your faith is genuine, a distinction made in the verse, it will reveal itself through your behavior. quite CLEARLY different than absolution and indulgences granted in the catholic church.
>literally just cherry picking single lines
It's also the only time "faith alone" is mentioned in the Bible. Like God had the foresight to include this in the canon yet people will still not see the plain truth.
Isn't this clear enough? Any man who relies on his works sprouted from the will of his flesh will not be saved, because no work of his is on its own of value to God, but having faith in Jesus Christ, the only begotten son of God, those works which sprout not from his will but from God's will are fragrant and pleasing to Him since they were founded in faith in Christ and not in the man's own will. What Protestants believe is only that works without faith are dead works, and likewise faith without good works is a dead faith. Where faith is there WILL be good works. This is reflected when James says "Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only? ... For even as the body without the spirit is dead; so also faith without works is dead." Essentially this all ends in semantics, because whether you're Protestant or Catholic, we believe the same exact thing, but regardless, we love to argue over it.
(2/2
Will they ever address all the sects, denominations and cults that have sprung up
since the Luther?
This was always a stupid argument. One corrupt and incorrect church with no alternatives isn't better than many denominations.
>source
7th grade history
Which denomination is correct
>Which denomination is correct
Don't pick a denomination, just do what the Bible says.
Which part?
It's up for interpretation, but if your spiritual leader lives in a palace or a mansion he's probably not a good person.
>spiritual leader
Based Cult, where's the kooolAID
>Mary is the Mother of God
That doesn't mean you should worship idols in her image.
It's not talking about intercession--the verses right before that one (1 Timothy 2:1-4) literally command you to intercede for others, and James 5:13-15 shows elders of the Church interceding for the sick and God honoring their prayer.
As Hebrews 9:15 explains (and the rest of the chapter), Christ is the mediator of the new COVENANT, the covenant between God and man.
In the Old Testament, the High Priest acted as the mediator between God (Yaweh) and His people.
As the new High Priest, and as God in the flesh, Christ takes on that role.
It's not talking about intercession, as the Holy Spirit intercedes for us and we see intercession all over the Bible--if Christ was the only one who intercedes for us, that would contradict the verses right at the start of 1 Timothy 2 that command US to intercede for each other.
Christianity existed for 1500 years before Protestants came to shit it up. Most Christians were illiterate yet Protestants will autistically screech about sola scriptura.
Before Protestants the Catholics literally let you buy your way into heaven. The Catholic Church was and still is incredibly corrupt.
Source?
Source?
This
You are deflecting. Why did the Catholics make it illegal to translate the Bible into English other than to give themselves a monopoly on spiritual authority?
>monopoly on spiritual authority
What's wrong with that?
Because the Catholic Church is ran by humans, and humans are inherently corrupt and sinful.
God's work on earth is through humans.
>God's work on earth is through humans
God worked through Satan too. Should we put Satan in charge of our church?
>Source?
https://www.britannica.com/topic/indulgence
>Source?
https://www.britannica.com/biography/William-Tyndale
Churches raise money. So what?
Protecting the faith from heretics. So what?
The bible was translated and now we have 1000s of denomination.
And cults who don't believe in the trinity
And Solo Scriptura prots who believe in the trinity but the TRINITY is not in the bible.
And Solo Scriptura prots who divorce and remarry
>Churches raise money. So what?
They raised money by telling people they could buy their way into heaven.
>And cults who don't believe in the trinity
The only trinity Catholics believe in is Peter, Mary, and Pope Francis.
people they could buy their way into heaven
What people? And so what. If they were contrite when they asked God for forgiveness then the plenary indulgence is inconsequential.
That would be like taking away your computer so you can make it to heaven since all you do is talk nonsense on IQfy, taking away your computer cancels your sinful thoughts by default. Now imagine brainlets in the future crying about the church taking away your computer in order to let you into heaven.
>the only trinity
Catholics are known to cross themselves
Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
the TRINTY that's not mentioned in the
Bible,
>And so what. If they were contrite when they asked God for forgiveness then the plenary indulgence is inconsequential.
Giving people false information about how to get into Heaven is disgusting.
Is the word >disgusting in the bible?
And now there are Protestant branches that allow you to buy your way to heaven, thanks Martin Luther! The absolute state of western Christianity lmfao
Found the Orthodox. Always sticking out like a sore thumb, or rather always wanting to be recognized as just so different from the other Christians. Always these wild-eyed and long-haired, long-bearded guys; I guess a lot of them are former metal-heads. They must've really liked the aesthetic of the Great Schema. I bet they'd love “Death to the World”, the hip Orthodox Christian zine for Metal-Loving Teens. And don't forget Jay Dyer, always love Mr. Jay "How is there one ontological will in God, while the Persons appear to do separate actions?" Dyer. Can never forget Jay "A proto-trinitarian doctrine was already taught in Hellenism in Proclus, Plotinus, and others, including a kind of version in Philo. It is hard to accept that the Eastern Fathers were not Hellenistic as the Eastern apologists tell us, when they can’t even seem to figure out if God gave sex and human bodies as a result of the fall" Dyer. But they've moved on from metal, I suppose. Now they listen to 1 hour long Orthodox chad — I mean chant — compilations on Youtube, and participate in the beautiful, sacred tradition of sharing out-of-context quotes from old, dead, but similarly long-bearded men from hundreds of years ago in order to vicariously live out their fantasy of being a learned, intelligent, religious man, though they can't bear to argue themselves in any way except to spout platitudes, spam wojaks, and remind everyone how the Catholic church is so wrapped up in scandal, and the Protestants are so gay, but the Orthodox Church is so normal. Oh, at least the Orthodox are normal. See Brother Nathanael? See Father Spyridon? Oh, thank God the Orthodox are normal, and I can buy Father Josiah Trenham's wonderfully marketed PatristicNectar merch. But isn't it so horrible what Father Seraphim Rose said about the future of Russia?
>And now there are Protestant branches that allow you to buy your way to heaven, thanks Martin Luther!
So there are Protestant branches that are as depraved as the Catholics have always been? At least it took us 1000 years to get where you started.
With semantic bullshit
Organized religion is just a monopoly on power
Let dunking on Catholicism was played out in 1870 you fricking off topic lacking in testosterone homosexual, perish screaming
>perish screaming
Like Jan Hus?
Catholics will look at twitter arguments between gays and Christians and cry 1984 when the Christians get silenced, then read about what the Catholics did to the early reformers, feel their hearts filled with pride, and say "based...".
Trinitarians throw a shitstorm if you say Jesus was a man so they just ignore it like everything else the bible says
no they don't
>out of context Bible quotes like it’s some kind of gotcha
>again
We get tired of this. Just because those verses exist doesn’t mean we aren’t allowed to pray to Mary or the saints for intercession. Yes, Jesus is the link between man and God. No, that does not mean heavenly figures are not worth praying to. No, it does not mean we are praying to false gods. And no, nothing here contradicts itself
Can any of you actually justify praying to Mary or the saints? If Jesus is the sole mediator between us and the Father, then isn't going to Mary or anyone else entirely superfluous? Like you're trying to get a letter to the Father through Jesus, yet you're sending it first to Mary or whoever else so they can in turn send your letter along to Jesus, so he can finally send it to the Father. It just seems, if not blasphemous, a bit of a roundabout way to communicate with God.
(i) 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).
(ii) 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).
(iii) 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).
Hebrews speaks of the "cloud of witnesses" -- departed souls in heaven watching the Christians on earth who are still "running the race."
"Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses" Hebrews 12:1
Witnesses both see and hear. Do you think they watch all that is going on, and sit mute, disinterested, with no care for anything -- or do they petition the Father on behalf of those "running the race"?
Again, in Revelation the angels carry bowls full of prayers of the saints to the throne. The virgin martyrs cry out "how long", which is a prayer. Prayer means to petition. It is a channel through which we worship when talking to God and we honor when asking saints, Mary included, to intercede in prayer for us.
The saints are in heaven, alive in Christ. They can hear our prayers and intercede for us, as clearly taught in Hebrews and the Book of Revelation in particular.
See: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/praying-to-the-saints
And: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-intercession-of-the-saints
Both of which explain why prayer to saints is consistent with the Bible, and the teachings of the early Church. (Of course, the Protestant doctrine of sola fide was NOT believed by the early Christians -- it was invented by Martin Luther 1500 years after the Church was founded, as discussed here:
)
This video provides an *excellent* explanation of the Catholic doctrine of prayer to saints. It presents the Catholic view with great clarity, and soundly rebuts every Protestant objection you can think of.
Nothing in your entire post actually deals with what I asked about, neither what you said nor any of the quotes you supplied from the Bible. I never even denied the ability of angels and men to pray for us and with us, so it was a waste of time for you to try to convince me of it. Anyway, the act of personally going to Mary with prayers such as are found in many hymns seems extremely misplaced to me, as if you're spitting on Christ's sacrifice. It's not so much the act of communal prayer itself, but the content of many of these prayers which puts me off, and it seems to be a common deflection to assume anyone who questions these things is simply ignorant of the biblical stance on intercession. Both of the links to catholic.com you provided are dead, by the way. Not sure why, considering they probably worked for you when you put them in your post. I'll watch the video you linked later, though.
Have you actually read what Luther wrote for yourself? Do you understand what the five Solas mean? Surely you're not trying to argue against something you don't understand. Sola Fide is not a doctrine that espouses the worthlessness of good works, and no learned protestant believes this, nor do they believe that Paul taught an "ethic-free" theology. What Sola Fide is, is a reminder that good works are not what will bring you salvation, but "faith" or "faith alone". What does this mean? It certainly does not mean that the faithful man will be a man who constantly disobeys God and cleaves to the will of his flesh. It's really just exactly what Paul himself said in Ephesians, "For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God; Not of works, that no man may glory. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them."
>Denn aus Gnade seid ihr selig geworden durch Glauben, und das nicht aus euch: Gottes Gabe ist es, nicht aus Werken, damit sich nicht jemand rühme. Denn wir sind sein Werk, geschaffen in Christus Jesus zu guten Werken, die Gott zuvor bereitet hat, dass wir darin wandeln sollen.
(1/2)
>Nothing in your entire post actually deals with what I asked about, neither what you said nor any of the quotes you supplied from the Bible
I think the issues you raised were discussed in my post; at least, I made an honest effort to respond, perhaps I came up short. However, anyone who is interested in the subject can find further detail in the links I provided.
I don't have any particular dispute with the text you posted. Without studying each sentence and phrase with a fine-tooth comb, I basically agree with it.
But with that said, as for Luther and sola fide, McGrath is a respected Protestant scholar; he carries a lot of weight. So, you can accuse me of not understanding sola fide, but I think it would require considerable chutzpah to charge McGrath with an equivalent ignorance.
Now in my view, the belief of the early Christians is dispositive on this question -- as it is wrt, e.g., the correct understanding of Christ's words in John 6. And when there's a disputed interpretation of the meaning of scripture - whether on the Eucharist or justification - the belief of the early Church is highly relevant, especially when that belief was universal. I think the case for the Catholic understanding of justification in scripture is strong -- and it becomes conclusive when that interpretation finds reinforcement throughout the early Church, as is the case with the Catholic understanding of justification (and the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, for that matter). Versus McGrath's conclusion that Luther's understanding of justification was *not* the belief of the early Christians, and indeed was not seen until, basically, the time of Luther.
It beggars belief that the Church could have erred on such a fundamental matter -- a matter "upon which the Church stands or falls," per Luther -- for some 1500 years.
If you think it comes down to semantics, that's fine. The nuances of your particular belief may indeed only reflect a semantic difference with Catholic belief. Truly, there is a great deal of semantics in the Catholic versus Protestant understanding of justification vs. sanctification.
But I would dispute that the Catholic-Protestant dispute over justification was, in the final analysis, *merely* a semantic dispute. Among other things, I think the difference between imputed and infused justification is kind of a big deal, to put it mildly.
>get btfo by the autists on IQfy
>decide to shit up IQfy
Go back.
These verses prove that Christianity is fundamentally the same thing as Mohammedanism no matter what conceptual or metaphysical verbiage you want to couch it in — a world-historical cargo cult centred around a powerful figure and bolstered by a millenium or more of cultural formation and ethnogenesis. Something that is not altogether unworthy of respect, but not by any means a final vehicle for ultimate truth, at least in it’s mundane normalgay form. The truth is in our age, religion is for women and untermensch, and so is atheism. For men, there is metaphysics.
The same way that all Christians engage with the Bible. They privilege certain verses over others to fit their goals. The Bible isn't univocal.
>for all people
how do Calvinists?
Well spotted!
I remember being 6 years old, first grade, in a Catholic school. I lost my homework assignment so the teacher gave me a little necklace of St Anthony and told me to chant "St Anthony, St Anthony, please come around / Something has been lost and cannot be found."
And apparently the spirit of St Anthony was supposed to magically make my homework appear. This is obviously a cheap superstition
I believe praying to a saint is just like asking another person to pray for you. Sure, you by no means have to, but having others pray for you is always beneficial.
It's really like asking if I could intercede for you or make atonement for your sin. I can't and you shouldn't even ask. Matthew 25: 1 - 13
>It's really like asking if I could intercede for you
Why didn't Paul just go straight to Jesus? Why did he set a rather different example, of asking for others' intercession?
“I appeal to you, brethren, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to strive together with me in your prayers to God on my behalf” Romans 15:30.
>Why didn't Paul just go straight to Jesus? Why did he set a rather different example, of asking for others' intercession?
Asking your friends to pray with you is different than asking a man who has been dead for 2000 years.
Well, you can follow your man-made tradition, I will follow the example in Revelation. And Maccabees -- which teaches the intercession of the saints in heaven, for which reason Protestants found it convenient to remove it from the canon of scripture.
>Well, you can follow your man-made tradition
You're literally worshipping a mortal man lol. Paul would be disgusted by your behavior, as seen here
.
>You're literally worshipping a mortal man lol.
Asking another's intercession on our behalf is *not* a form of worship -- or Paul, too would be guilty of such worship by dint of his request in Romans 15:30.
>Asking another's intercession on our behalf is *not* a form of worship
Saying that one person is spiritually superior to another is. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
>Saying that one person is spiritually superior to another is.
James does not say all are equal, but rather holds out some for a special distinction: "The prayer of a righteous man availeth much." James 5:16.
Not everyone is an Elijah, whose prayer can bring forth rain (James 5:17-18), nor can every man work the miracles of holy apostles like Peter and Paul. Yes, there are indeed persons who are "spiritually superior." The Bible makes that plain enough.
Romans 3
9 Well then, should we conclude that we israelites are better than others? No, not at all, for we have already shown that all people, whether israelites or Gentiles, are under the power of sin. 10 As the Scriptures say,
“No one is righteous—
not even one.
11 No one is truly wise;
no one is seeking God.
12 All have turned away;
all have become useless.
No one does good,
not a single one.”
>No one is righteous—
>not even one.
If no one was righteous, James's words - "The prayer of a righteous man availeth much" - would be senseless.
>The person with agape [love] in his heart is in friendship with God, and thus is righteous before God. When Abraham chose to believe God’s promise (Rom 4:3), this act not only showed that Abraham had a faith working through agape and thus was in friendship with God, but it also deepened that friendship, and so God counted it to him as righteousness. Agape fulfills the law (Rom 10:8-10), because agape is the spirit of the law. Without agape, no one is righteous in His sight. But through Christ agape is poured out into our hearts by the Holy Spirit (Rom 5:5). By this agape in our hearts, we walk in newness of life; this infused grace and agape produces the “obedience of faith” of which St. Paul speaks (Rom 1:5, 16:26). This infused grace and agape is the gift of righteousness (Rom 5:17) by which we have been “freed from sin and made slaves of righteousness” (Rom 6:18,22).
https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/07/st-augustine-on-law-and-grace/
But again: Not everyone is an Elijah, whose prayer can bring forth rain (James 5:17-18), nor can every man work the miracles of holy apostles like Peter and Paul.
And so, yes, there are indeed persons who are "spiritually superior."
Just because God answers your prayers or allows you to perform miracles doesn't mean you are righteous or that you aew going to Heaven.
Matthew 7:22-23 ESV
On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’
>Just because God answers your prayers or allows you to perform miracles doesn't mean you are righteous or that you aew going to Heaven.
But that truth does not abrogate this truth:
Because the demons can perform miracles, does not mean that those few whom God empowers to perform remarkable miracles - such as Elijah, Peter and Paul - are not spiritually superior.
Elijah, Peter, and Paul were all sinners. They aren't superior to anyone. If they went to Heaven it is because God is merciful, not because they weren't sinners.
They were great saints because of God's grace. And God objectively marked them as spiritually superior through their power to work public miracles.
Cf. Acts 14:3: Therefore they spent a long time there speaking boldly with reliance upon the Lord, who was testifying to the word of His grace, granting that signs and wonders be performed by their hands.
Acts 6:8: Now Stephen, a man full of God’s grace and power, performed great wonders and signs among the people.
>boldly with reliance upon the Lord
>a man full of God’s grace and power
Again this seems to me that the glory is going to God specifically and not the persons
>the glory is going to God specifically and not the persons
Correct. God literally used a talking donkey to convey a message once.
>spiritually superior.
Very ugly term.
Matt. 23:12
And he who will exalt himself shall be humbled, and he who will humble himself shall be exalted.
The spiritually superior are indeed humble -- they don't hold themselves out as superior. But in some cases we have objective evidence of certain persons being graced with very special graces indeed, not given to all, such as the power to work miracles.
And again, however ungainly the term "spiritually superior" (and I agree it's an ungainly phrase, but I did not coin it, but rather simply used it to respond to the one who did), James 5:16 implies a distinction -- implies degrees of righteousness that are greater in some than in others.
>The spiritually superior are indeed humble
Then why does the Pope sit on a throne surrounded by gold and live in a palace?
God commanded the Israelites to build and adorn the Temple in Jerusalem with precious metals and israeliteels in order for man to acknowledge the majesty and importance of God. Christians, especially after Roman imperial legalization in A.D. 313, continued the Old Testament practice of making beautiful objects and building ornate sacred spaces for the liturgy.
Re liturgical vestments, see: https://www.catholic.com/qa/do-priests-vestments-contradict-scripture
There's a big difference between ostentation oriented towards the aggrandizement of men and that which is for the exaltation of God. The Protestant man cannot comprehend this.
>There's a big difference between ostentation oriented towards the aggrandizement of men and that which is for the exaltation of God.
How does building staues of men, then kneeling and praying to them like in this picture
exalt God?
>God commanded the Israelites to build and adorn the Temple in Jerusalem with precious metals and israeliteels in order for man to acknowledge the majesty and importance of God.
The temple was a place to house the Holy Spirit, but now the Holy Spirit resides in all of us, making it superfluous.
1st Corinthians 6:19
Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God?
Furthermore it's pretty hypocritical of you to obey some Old Testament commands when you probably don't obey others. I'm assuming you eat pork and don't perform animal sacrifice?
>The temple was a place to house the Holy Spirit, but now the Holy Spirit resides in all of us, making it superfluous.
You impose a meaning on that text that by no means follows from the text itself. Where does the NT prohibit the building of Churches, as it expressly abrogates the OT dietary laws (Acts 10:15), and ceremonial laws (Galatians 5-6)? Where does it say Churches must be built as, say, austere wooden buildings?
The Last Supper was a liturgical act. It follows that liturgy is fundamental to Christian worship, and the use of liturgical vestments is biblical.
>Furthermore it's pretty hypocritical of you to obey some Old Testament commands when you probably don't obey others. I'm assuming you eat pork and don't perform animal sacrifice?
It's not hypocrisy. Here is a Protestant defense of the viability of the moral law of the OT: https://www.ligonier.org/learn/qas/what-parts-of-the-law-are-still-relevant-today
You sound like an antinomian, as defined in that article. I don't think such an understanding of the OT is sound.
>There's a big difference between ostentation oriented towards the aggrandizement of men and that which is for the exaltation of God.
You see ostentation, but the Catholic understanding of liturgical vestments is quite different, as explained here: https://www.catholic.com/qa/do-priests-vestments-contradict-scripture
>The Protestant man cannot comprehend this.
Fair enough. But there are plenty of Protestants who wear liturgical garments, also. And build beautiful churches. It may not be to your taste; it may offend your sensibilities; you may think it's flat-out wrong. But it's not just Catholics who do such things, but Protestants also.
Catholic statues - starting with the Crucifix found on every Catholic altar - are instruments for focusing the mind and facilitating prayer. God commanded the building of statues for liturgical use in the OT, and a graven image to be made for purposes of healing. (Why not just heal directly? Why the graven image?)
The Catholic understanding is explained here: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/so-catholics-worship-statues
>Where does the NT prohibit the building of Churches
Follow the example of Christ. Jesus and Paul held church on hills and in people's houses. If Jesus didn't feel it was necessary to surround himself with gold and israeliteels, why should you?
>It's not hypocrisy. Here is a Protestant defense of the viability of the moral law of the OT
So if you want temples because the israelites had them in the OT are you preforming animal sacrifice in them like the israelites did, too?
Percy Wetmore, is that you?
You argue like girlfriend after she's had a couple of glasses of wine.
Your rebuttals hint that you go surface deep at best, when developing a line of argument. Irritational emotion instead of inquisitive study causes this IMO.
>Irritational emotion
You insulted me instead of disputing either of my points. If anyone is emotional here it is you.
>Catholic statues - starting with the Crucifix found on every Catholic altar - are instruments for focusing the mind and facilitating prayer
Is God really so weak that you need idols just to contact him? Can he not hear you normally?
>But through Christ agape is poured out into our hearts by the Holy Spirit
This seems to be the crux of the matter. The person in question is not superior, but has Christ's love in his heart. The person in his own self is dead in his offenses, ergo, not righteous.
>The person in his own self is dead in his offenses, ergo, not righteous.
Ah, here we see Luther's sick understanding of sola fide -- that strange belief that no one in the Church believed for its first 1500 years.
To wit, Luther's perverse understanding of imputed righteousness, versus the true biblical doctrine of infused righteousness.
But you correctly point to the crux: "God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 5:5).
That's what the Bible teaches, and that's what I - and the early Church - believe.
Luther's imputed righteousness is a man-made tradition, unknown in the first 1500 years of the Church.
Again, it beggars belief that the Church could have erred on such a fundamental matter -- a matter "upon which the Church stands or falls," per Luther -- for some 1500 years.
But passions run strong in these matters -- strong enough to override the plain meaning of scripture in favor of a very late, man-made tradition.
Can you clarify the terms imputed righteousness and infused righteousness?
I'll try. I'm writing this on the fly:
Quick version is: "Imputed" = "declared"; "infused" = "poured into".
We as Catholics believe that God *does* declare us to be righteous, but God's word is effective, so it actually *causes us* to become righteous.
Per Wikipedia, Luther asserted that Christians receive Christ's righteousness entirely from outside themselves; that righteousness not only comes from Christ, it actually is the righteousness of Christ, and *remains outside of us but is merely imputed to us* (rather than infused into us) through faith.
Explanation by Lutheran pastor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-W56OxrKm5E&ab_channel=Dr.JordanBCooper
Explanation by a convert to Catholicism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amAwaX8nqKI&ab_channel=ThePristineFaith
I'll have to research further into it. From my understanding scripture tells us to "die to self" and put our old man to death and be crucified with Christ, then to receive Christ's life which then transforms and glorifies us. This all seems consistent with our flesh being under condemnation and that we can do no good without God.
>I'll have to research further into it.
Fair enough. I would just note that scripture does speak of putting off the old man, but also of putting on the new man.
Ephesians 4:
22 You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; 23 to be made new in the attitude of your minds; 24 and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.
In the language of Trent, justification is understood "as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam [1 Cor 15:22], Jesus Christ, our Saviour."
"Beloved, we are God's children now," 1 John 3:2
This is entirely consistent with what I've learned at a Protestant church.
>it is no longer I who live but Him that lives in me
I'm not sure what the disconnect is then. My vague familiarity with Protestant theology includes the statement "Total Depravity" which as a doctrine seems entirely consistent with the idea the world is fallen and of the doctrine of original sin. What do Catholics state which includes the excerpt of Ephesians 4 but excludes the idea what Luther teaches?
>love
>spirit of the law
Libidinality and venality (love and the spirit of the law) are the pillars of paganism. Pagan Gods do nothing but swoon over each other as they exchange words, wills, appearances, etc. One can easily identify the most refined Vatican doctrine, Atheism, in its Anglo actuality, as nothing but venality (Materialism) and libidinality (a necessary obverse of vulgar emotionalism; note the insufferable Anglo humor, romanticism, and most of all the fabrication of "desires", "drives", "instincts", etc. as integral to Empiricism as it is to mercantile subhumanity).
1 Cor. 12:23
And those members of the body which we consider to be less honorable, these we clothe with more abundant honor; and our uncomely members come to have more abundant comeliness,
1 Cor. 12:24
But our comely members have no need. But God has blended the body together, giving more abundant honor to the member that lacked,
Even the most righteous human on Earth is still a sinner who is destined for Hell. It is only by the grace of God you are saved.
>I believe praying to a saint is just like asking another person to pray for you.
Would you be comfortable praying to Socrates or Buddha? All humans are sinners, Elijah, Moses, Mary, and Peter have no more spiritual authority than any other human being who has existed.
I would love to talk to Socrates 🙁
Catholics hold to the position that Mary was sinless.
If Mary was sinless then she wouldn't have died.
>St. Paul tells us that the believers who are still alive at the Second Coming will be changed in an instant from an earthly corruptible body to a heavenly body. St. Thomas says this will occur through Christ’s glorification of the souls of the blessed. The glory will flow from the souls into the bodies and raise them up to a heavenly body. Pope Pius XII declared in his apostolic constitution, Munificentissimus Deus in 1950 that the Blessed Virgin Mary already has undergone this sea-change to an immortal heavenly body and was assumed into heaven at the end of her life.
And some Catholics also say she never even died.
>Pope Pius XII declared in his apostolic constitution, Munificentissimus Deus in 1950 that the Blessed Virgin Mary already has undergone this sea-change to an immortal heavenly body
Which book of the Bible is this in, exactly?
Don't be silly, Catholics don't read the Bible.
uh, I think the people who have interacted with Jesus have a little more spiritual authority than the average man.
God used them to perform great deeds but they were all regular people, and all of them sinned at some point in their lives. Elijah and Peter both fled from God out of fear, Moses angered God so much he killed him before he could enter the Promised Land. Paul and David were murderers, Solomon worshiped pagan gods, etc.
All fair points, but I still think what I think.
Intercessory Prayer
The idea of taking one’s problems “right to Jesus” is surely not to be understood in the sense of forgoing the mediating prayer of others. It is not as though the unique mediation of Jesus our Lord (1 Timothy 2:5) excludes certain saints from mediating on behalf of other saints, and various Gospel stories are the proof of this principle. This is called intercessory prayer, and the Gospels give us some understanding how it “works.”
For instance, we may look at Luke’s version of the story of the Centurion, who pleads for his servant (Luke 7:1–10). First, the centurion himself does not approach Jesus directly. He sends some friends who will speak for him. Now this is interesting, because it introduces another level of mediation. The friends are interceding for the centurion, who is in turn interceding for his servant. We have here the beginnings of a prayer chain, as it were.
Then, when Jesus starts moving towards the centurion’s home, the latter dispatches another group of friends, who will speak the famous words that characterize this story: “I am not worthy that You should enter under my roof” (7:6). It is surely significant that the centurion does not speak these words, deeply personal as they are, to Jesus directly. Others say them to Jesus on the centurion’s behalf.
In Luke’s version of the story, in fact, there is no face-to-face encounter of the centurion with Jesus at all. The centurion’s faith is conveyed by those he chooses to intercede for him.
As an account of a person beseeching the Lord on behalf of someone else, this shared narrative resembles other stories in the Gospels, such as Jairus and the Syro-Phoenician woman praying for their daughters (Mark 5:23; 7:24–30), another man and a centurion pleading for their sons (9:17; John 4:46–53), Martha and Mary of Bethany interceding for their brother (11:3). These are all accounts of petitionary prayer on behalf of loved ones. Such stories surely had a great influence on the patterns of Christian intercessory prayer.
https://allsaintsorthodox.org/prayer-requests/
>For instance, we may look at Luke’s version of the story of the Centurion, who pleads for his servant (Luke 7:1–10). First, the centurion himself does not approach Jesus directly. He sends some friends who will speak for him.
If only there was some way we could speak directly to God whenever we wanted...
If only the Bible *didn't* have multiple examples of intercessors; but it does -- both on earth and in heaven.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say to pray to saints or the dead for intercession. At multiple points it says to pray to God
The Bible encourages us to ask others to pray for us, and that necessarily includes the saints in heaven, who are seen in Revelation interceding for the saints on earth.
Rev. 22:8
And I John am he who hears and sees these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell to worship before the feet of the angel who showed me these things.
Rev. 22:9
And he said to me, Do not do that! I am your fellow slave and a fellow slave of your brothers the prophets and of those who keep the words of this scroll. Worship God.
See:
https://thebookofconcord.org/apology-of-the-augsburg-confession/article-xxi/
This
Now go drink your milk
When the crowd saw what Paul had done, they shouted in the Lycaonian language, “The gods have come down to us in human form!” 12 Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul they called Hermes because he was the chief speaker. 13 The priest of Zeus, whose temple was just outside the city, brought bulls and wreaths to the city gates because he and the crowd wanted to offer sacrifices to them.
14 But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd, shouting: 15 “Friends, why are you doing this? We too are only human, like you. We are bringing you good news, telling you to turn from these worthless things to the living God, who made the heavens and the earth and the sea and everything in them.
-Acts 14
Zeus and Hermes?
So Paul's not a Greek god?
Very insightful.
>they tore their clothes
Would a Lutherite consider that a "Work" ?
Tearing ones clothes off and running into a crowd sounds like a work.
Paul obviously didn't want to be worshipped when he was alive, so why are you worshipping him now that he is dead? Not only are you sinning, you are doing what Paul specifically asked people not to do.
What denomination is worshipping Paul?
The one that builds statues like this
. It is clearly worship, as defined here
.
>It is clearly worship
Really? Is portraiture worship to you as well? Or indeed any artistic expression whatsoever?
>as defined here
I guess the Ark of the Covenant was sacrilegious as well for having Cherubs on it. Lol. You people are a complete joke, claiming we are beholden to Mosaic Law (already fulfilled by the Messiah) like a bunch of israelites.
>You people are a complete joke, claiming we are beholden to Mosaic Law (already fulfilled by the Messiah) like a bunch of israelites.
So you don't follow the Ten Commandments? I suppose that explains why Catholics murdered so many people...
If you get on your knees and pray to a statue, believing there's some kind of life or spirit in the statue, then that's idolatry and contradicted by Scripture
Psa. 115:4
Their idols are mere silver and gold,
The work of human hands.
Psa. 115:5
They have mouths, but they do not speak;
They have eyes, but they do not see.
Psa. 115:6
They have ears, but they do not hear;
They have noses, but they do not smell.
Psa. 115:7
They have hands, but they do not feel;
They have feet, but they do not walk;
They make no sound in their throat.
Psa. 115:8
Those who make them,
All who trust in them,
Are like them.
I think as Christians we are better off avoiding images and icons altogether
Check out this icon
ACTS 19:11-12
Rags don't speak or have eyes, work of human hands
Yeah thats definitely a different matter. I think the Reformers were definitely right to be upset about the proliferation of supposed relics and how they were used superstitiously. However Scripture clearly said that things like Paul's handkerchief did something. But I think for the subject of icons specifically, a bunch of little statues and candles on a table don't really achieve anything and we're better off avoiding that kind of thing.
>However Scripture clearly said that things like Paul's handkerchief did something.
God did something, not Paul or his handkerchief. That's like saying Samson's hair gave him superhuman strength, or Moses' staff let him part the sea.
Read this chapter, especially paragraphs 14 to 18
https://thebookofconcord.org/apology-of-the-augsburg-confession/article-xxi/
The basic argument is that when you pray to a Saint for intercession you're basically saying that person has the authority to offer forgiveness of sins, which is idolatry
John 20:23
Gonna have to ask a spiritual leader about this verse. Very complex
Ezekiel 41:17-25
About a temple with images?
So if we don't worship them then they're alright ?
It seems the Catholic Church lives rent free in the minds of every other denomination.
That's an attractive quality that the Catholic Church has going for it
>About a temple with images?
Images of what? God and Jesus or humans?
>It seems the Catholic Church lives rent free in the minds of every other denomination. That's an attractive quality that the Catholic Church has going for it.
Thanks to the Catholic Church whenever people think of Christians they think of pedophiles, so thanks for that.
>"This"
Well, of course that's the correct answer, but note the post that remark was given in response to:
*I'm* not the one who said we "shouldn't even ask" someone else to intercede for us.
Exodus 20:2
4 You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.
5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me
They already ignore the baptism where God, Jesus, and Holy Spirit all do different things, as different and separate beings.
The trinity doesn't make sense and is just monotheistic israeli cope.
1st timothy is believed to be a forgery almost unanimously by scholars
the same scholars that invent a q source to explain things rather than paying attention to things like congruency in luke and john. same scholars that think greek couldn't have been known even though it's extremely evident that 2000 years ago it wasn't a mono lingual civilization. i'm done accepting "consensus" of these clowns and timothy was likely done by a scribe while paul was imprisoned.