Welcome to Gaia! ::

The Bible Guild

Back to Guilds

What if Jesus meant every word He said? 

Tags: God, Jesus, The Holy Spirit, The Bible, Truth, Love, Eternal Life, Salvation, Faith, Holy, Fellowship, Apologetics 

Reply Questions & Answers
Question: "What is sola scriptura?" Goto Page: 1 2 [>] [»|]

Quick Reply

Enter both words below, separated by a space:

Can't read the text? Click here

Submit

Garland-Green

Friendly Gaian

PostPosted: Fri Mar 15, 2013 11:02 am
Answer: The phrase sola scriptura is from the Latin: sola having the idea of “alone,” “ground,” “base,” and the word scriptura meaning “writings”—referring to the Scriptures. Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16).

Sola scriptura was the rallying cry of the Protestant Reformation. For centuries the Roman Catholic Church had made its traditions superior in authority to the Bible. This resulted in many practices that were in fact contradictory to the Bible. Some examples are prayer to saints and/or Mary, the immaculate conception, transubstantiation, infant baptism, indulgences, and papal authority. Martin Luther, the founder of the Lutheran Church and father of the Protestant Reformation, was publicly rebuking the Catholic Church for its unbiblical teachings. The Catholic Church threatened Martin Luther with excommunication (and death) if he did not recant. Martin Luther's reply was, “Unless therefore I am convinced by the testimony of Scripture, or by the clearest reasoning, unless I am persuaded by means of the passages I have quoted, and unless they thus render my conscience bound by the Word of God, I cannot and will not retract, for it is unsafe for a Christian to speak against his conscience. Here I stand, I can do no other; may God help me! Amen!”

The primary Catholic argument against sola scriptura is that the Bible does not explicitly teach sola scriptura. Catholics argue that the Bible nowhere states that it is the only authoritative guide for faith and practice. While this is true, they fail to recognize a crucially important issue. We know that the Bible is the Word of God. The Bible declares itself to be God-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative. We also know that God does not change His mind or contradict Himself. So, while the Bible itself may not explicitly argue for sola scriptura, it most definitely does not allow for traditions that contradict its message. Sola scriptura is not as much of an argument against tradition as it is an argument against unbiblical, extra-biblical and/or anti-biblical doctrines. The only way to know for sure what God expects of us is to stay true to what we know He has revealed—the Bible. We can know, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that Scripture is true, authoritative, and reliable. The same cannot be said of tradition.

The Word of God is the only authority for the Christian faith. Traditions are valid only when they are based on Scripture and are in full agreement with Scripture. Traditions that contradict the Bible are not of God and are not a valid aspect of the Christian faith. Sola scriptura is the only way to avoid subjectivity and keep personal opinion from taking priority over the teachings of the Bible. The essence of sola scriptura is basing your spiritual life on the Bible alone and rejecting any tradition or teaching that is not in full agreement with the Bible. Second Timothy 2:15 declares, “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.”

Sola scriptura does not nullify the concept of church traditions. Rather, sola scriptura gives us a solid foundation on which to base church traditions. There are many practices, in both Catholic and Protestant churches, that are the result of traditions, not the explicit teaching of Scripture. It is good, and even necessary, for the church to have traditions. Traditions play an important role in clarifying and organizing Christian practice. At the same time, in order for these traditions to be valid, they must not be in disagreement with God’s Word. They must be based on the solid foundation of the teaching of Scripture. The problem with the Roman Catholic Church, and many other churches, is that they base traditions on traditions which are based on traditions which are based on traditions, often with the initial tradition not being in full harmony with the Scriptures. That is why Christians must always go back to sola scriptura, the authoritative Word of God, as the only solid basis for faith and practice.

On a practical matter, a frequent objection to the concept of sola scriptura is the fact that the canon of the Bible was not officially agreed upon for at least 250 years after the church was founded. Further, the Scriptures were not available to the masses for over 1500 years after the church was founded. How, then, were early Christians to use sola scriptura, when they did not even have the full Scriptures? And how were Christians who lived before the invention of the printing press supposed to base their faith and practice on Scripture alone if there was no way for them to have a complete copy of the Scriptures? This issue is further compounded by the very high rates of illiteracy throughout history. How does the concept of sola scriptura handle these issues?

The problem with this argument is that it essentially says that Scripture’s authority is based on its availability. This is not the case. Scripture’s authority is universal; because it is God’s Word, it is His authority. The fact that Scripture was not readily available, or that people could not read it, does not change the fact that Scripture is God’s Word. Further, rather than this being an argument against sola scriptura, it is actually an argument for what the church should have done, instead of what it did. The early church should have made producing copies of the Scriptures a high priority. While it was unrealistic for every Christian to possess a complete copy of the Bible, it was possible that every church could have some, most, or all of the Scriptures available to it. Early church leaders should have made studying the Scriptures their highest priority so they could accurately teach it. Even if the Scriptures could not be made available to the masses, at least church leaders could be well-trained in the Word of God. Instead of building traditions upon traditions and passing them on from generation to generation, the church should have copied the Scriptures and taught the Scriptures (2 Timothy 4:2).

Again, traditions are not the problem. Unbiblical traditions are the problem. The availability of the Scriptures throughout the centuries is not the determining factor. The Scriptures themselves are the determining factor. We now have the Scriptures readily available to us. Through the careful study of God’s Word, it is clear that many church traditions which have developed over the centuries are in fact contradictory to the Word of God. This is where sola scriptura applies. Traditions that are based on, and in agreement with, God’s Word can be maintained. Traditions that are not based on, and/or disagree with, God’s Word must be rejected. Sola scriptura points us back to what God has revealed to us in His Word. Sola scriptura ultimately points us back to the God who always speaks the truth, never contradicts Himself, and always proves Himself to be dependable.

Recommended Resource: Scripture Alone by James White.

From gotquestions.org  
PostPosted: Sat Mar 16, 2013 7:26 pm
Great resource, brother. Thank you once more!  

Servant Reborn

Devout Worshipper

12,450 Points
  • Mark Twain 100
  • Forum Junior 100
  • Partygoer 500

Garland-Green

Friendly Gaian

PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 4:34 am
Servant Reborn
Great resource, brother. Thank you once more!

No problem.
Glad the stuff I post is useful brother!  
PostPosted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 10:11 pm
While I understand and support the message of the anti-establishment reformation, I will draw my line at sola scriptura.

You say the bible itself claims it is god-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative, but this is a lie. No book in the bible directly claims this (although the Torah is close). Look for it all you want, you won't find it.

It is not the word of God, it is the word of man. Where Martin Luther was right was that the Catholic establishment was also founded on the word of man. Where he erred was in saying the bible was the word of God. He had no proof, biblical or otherwise.

I go further than Martin Luther would've ever gone. While I respect and revere the Bible, it is not infallible. To say so is dangerous to the faith itself. It is our most powerful instrument for teaching, but it is not flawless.

You must walk honest, and uncertain. Simplicity and blind faith do not hold ground against reason. If you want to hang on to some infallible pillar of truth, you would do wise not to fall into this trap. If you truly must know what is authoritative, then you must pray.  

Aporeia

Shameless Mystic


jack0076970

PostPosted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 10:53 pm
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Timothy 3:16,17)

"But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." (2 Peter 1:20,21)  
PostPosted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 11:36 pm
I'm going to have to politely disagree with a lot of what you're saying here... and saying that my faith engages in traditions that goes against the Bible is pretty inflammatory.


Those of us who are Catholic recognize the Bible as the inspired word of God as in the Holy Spirit acted upon humans to write it, but it was still written down by humans. It did not just fall out of the sky or magically appear out of nowhere as if God himself wrote it. There are books of the Bible that you can make say pretty much anything you want [Daniel and Revelations more so than any others], especially if you read everything literally and don't take the historical context and that they were written down by humans into consideration.


Martin Luther's Ninety-Five Theses on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences primarily dealt with the abuse surrounding the selling of indulgences, which is a practice that has since been abolished in the Catholic church.

Really there is no need for indulgences anyway considering that in the Roman Catholic [and some Protestant] religions, you have some form of confession that results in absolution for the committed sin. I really don't know what the other Protestant faiths without confession believe... Do they keep all sins forever or do they believe that Jesus automatically resolves all their sins for them?


All prayers directed towards Saints [including Mary] are intercessory prayers where you're either 1) asking the Saint to pray also and/or 2) asking that saint to mediate with God directly on your behalf. For example if my cat with early renal disease goes into full on kidney failure, I may direct a prayer to Saint Francis of Assisi [patron saint of animals] and asking him to either pray for my cat also or mediate with God directly for my cat.

Likewise prayers to Mary specifically are intercessory prayers usually asking her to pray for you or someone else and/or to mediate with God directly such that the individual being prayed for is given mercy and is not sent to hell.

In no case is the saint in question being worshiped, which seems to be a common misconception with protestants.


Excommunication is not meant to be a permanent thing. When someone is excommunicated, you're also hoping that they repent from whatever behavior resulted in the excommunication in the first place, so that they can be welcomed back. Don't forget, Martin Luther may have been right about the selling of indulgences, but he was still essentially revolting from the church.


If protestants don't believe in the immaculate conception, how do they think Jesus got here? [No really... I'm asking because I honestly don't know what protestants think on this.]


Unfortunately it's late, I have work and need to go to bed so anything else.. I can't comment on until tomorrow.  

Sachie Whitby

King Vampire

18,200 Points
  • Cat Fancier 100
  • Alchemy Level 10 100
  • Cool Cat 500

jack0076970

PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2013 12:08 am
Protestants do (generally - can't speak for all) believe in the immaculate conception. It's pretty clear in the bible.
The prophecy concerning such was given in Isaiah 7:14 "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

And in Matthew 7:18 "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. 19Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. 20But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. 21And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. 22Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 23Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. 24Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS."

EDIT >>> On reflection the issue regarding Mary is not with the virgin birth but her perpetual virginity which is pretty much dashed in v25 <<<

Regarding confession
"If we confess our sins He is faithful & just to forgive us our sins & cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9)

As for our intercessor - 2 verses later John says
"My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:" (1 John 2:1)

As for the generally argued notion that yes God inspired it but men wrote it down (speaking at least of the original work)... if God took time to relate it & it was important to Him, don't you think He would have made sure it was written down right? If you believe that He is, why not believe that He was able to do just that.  
PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2013 6:44 am
Protestants or "sola scriptura" believers understand the concept of intercession; the only difference is that they limit the activity to living people, like the books of the bible do. What really puts doubt on "intercessory prayer from the dead" is the case of Abraham especially: as one of the patriarchs whom God made promises to and even called His friend in both Old and New Testaments (Isaiah 41:8; James 2:23 ), you would think he'd be in one of the prime positions to put in a good word for you, especially when, while he was alive, he intercessed on behalf of Sodom, bargaining with God to spare the wicked city. It was in his character to intercess for others—stranger or family, good or bad.

So, when we get to Luke 16:19-31, and he not only refuses to intervene for the rich man, but instead tells the rich man that the family he left behind should rely on Moses and the prophets as warning enough, you've got to ask yourself: why didn't Abraham offer to pray for the rich man's family, asking God to open their eyes and give them a heart to seek his word, or something similar. It's understandable if he didn't want to send back a resurrected person, but why not a prayer? The fact that he didn't intercess makes me suspect that it can't be done after death, because if Abraham is willing to intercess on behalf of Sodom, he would be willing to intercess for a rich man's family. It's not a matter of whether he was willing or not, it's a matter of whether he can or not. I don't think dead people can intercess for anyone. Living people, on the otherhand, can and do. All the examples of intercession, Old and New Testament combined, come from living, in-the-flesh, people—if not God himself.

Quote:
Romans 8:26-27 (NIV)

26 In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. 27 And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God’s people in accordance with the will of God.


Quote:
Hebrews 7:24-25 (NIV)

24 but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25 Therefore he is able to save completely[a] those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.


and Jesus isn't dead; he resurrected with an immortal body. The Holy Spirit is inside our living bodies. So you see, even in the case of God intercessing for us, a living body is always involved.

The dead are waiting in Sheol for their resurrection and judgment. The spirits of departed human beings don't intercess for anyone; I've yet to come across one such example. In fact, they seem kind of powerless to do anything whenever they're addressed. Even when King Saul unlawfully summoned Samuel from the grave through a medium (1 Samuel 28 ), Samuel didn't pray on Saul's behalf; Samuel told him God was acting according to prophecy and Saul was getting exactly what his actions deserved—which is the same with Abraham in Lk 16:19-31 now that I think about it. What's more, Samuel was a known intercessor while he was alive (1 Samuel 7:5; 1 Samuel 12:23), even saying it was sin for him not to pray for others, yet they both didn't intercess after death: neither the "friend of God" nor the anointed prophet, a New Testament example and an Old Testament example. This cohesiveness throughout the books can't be denied. So either the entire collection of books is wrong on that detail or they're right: dead people can't intercess, they won't deliver messages to God for you or do you any favors.  

real eyes realize

Invisible Guildswoman


Sachie Whitby

King Vampire

18,200 Points
  • Cat Fancier 100
  • Alchemy Level 10 100
  • Cool Cat 500
PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2013 7:29 am
real eyes realize
Protestants or "sola scriptura" believers understand the concept of intercession; the only difference is that they limit the activity to living people, like the books of the bible do. What really puts doubt on "intercessory prayer from the dead" is the case of Abraham especially: as one of the patriarchs whom God made promises to and even called His friend in both Old and New Testaments (Isaiah 41:8; James 2:23 ), you would think he'd be in one of the prime positions to put in a good word for you, especially when, while he was alive, he intercessed on behalf of Sodom, bargaining with God to spare the wicked city. It was in his character to intercess for others—stranger or family, good or bad.


There's a specific part of Revelations which is cited as why it is okay to appeal to the saints for intercessory prayer but really, we're talking about a book which is wildly open to a variety of interpretations so posting up scripture is almost moot as different denominations will interpret it differently even to the extent as to if the book's predictions are good or something to be feared.

If we're all understanding that intercessory prayers are just that and that nobody is praying to saints like they're false idols, I'm totally cool here. It doesn't matter to me that protestants limit these kinds of prayers to those who are still living. <3  
PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2013 7:55 am
Sachie Whitby
real eyes realize
Protestants or "sola scriptura" believers understand the concept of intercession; the only difference is that they limit the activity to living people, like the books of the bible do. What really puts doubt on "intercessory prayer from the dead" is the case of Abraham especially: as one of the patriarchs whom God made promises to and even called His friend in both Old and New Testaments (Isaiah 41:8; James 2:23 ), you would think he'd be in one of the prime positions to put in a good word for you, especially when, while he was alive, he intercessed on behalf of Sodom, bargaining with God to spare the wicked city. It was in his character to intercess for others—stranger or family, good or bad.


There's a specific part of Revelations which is cited as why it is okay to appeal to the saints for intercessory prayer but really, we're talking about a book which is wildly open to a variety of interpretations so posting up scripture is almost moot as different denominations will interpret it differently even to the extent as to if the book's predictions are good or something to be feared.

If we're all understanding that intercessory prayers are just that and that nobody is praying to saints like they're false idols, I'm totally cool here. It doesn't matter to me that protestants limit these kinds of prayers to those who are still living. <3


To someone who is sola scriptura, providing scripture is not moot razz I welcome it, please. Mostly because the body is supposed to be in agreement, sharing one mind (Philippians 2:2; Romans 15:6; 1 Peter 3:8 ) so if there's something else that makes a case for it, I would like it brought to my attention so that I can stop being in error and divisive over this issue. Perchance are you referring to Revelation 5:8? the prayers of the saints? Living people are called saints all throughout the new testament (i.e. Acts 9:13, Ephesians 1:1, Romans 1:7, et cetera), so if that's it, it's not making much of a case, if any, for the intercession of the dead specifically. So if you have a verse supporting this, again, please provide it. At the very least, it would be nice to know where fellow believers are getting these ideas.

I for one don't think the book of Revelation is open to a wide variety of interpretations since all of the symbols it uses are located elsewhere in other books of the bible (usually the books of other prophets like Isaiah, Zechariah and Daniel). We may not recognize all of the things it describes until it happens, sure, but it can't be so farfetch'd that it outright contradicts the rest of the scrolls/books/prophets.  

real eyes realize

Invisible Guildswoman


Servant Reborn

Devout Worshipper

12,450 Points
  • Mark Twain 100
  • Forum Junior 100
  • Partygoer 500
PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2013 3:53 pm
The bit I have trouble believing is that God would his Word to be diluted by man's interpretations. Someone earlier posted one of the verses I was thinking of, and there's another one I was thinking of where someone says that we do not follow fables..but I have to look for it. The Bible has to be perfectly right, and we just fail to see all it's truth. The spirit reveals to us when it is time, right?

The alternative is some parts are wrong, which would cause me doubt. I suppose that brings the question can a perfect being (God) create a perfect book through an imperfect creatures (men) over thousands of years? Does man's free will to interpret and understand damage the book? Is the Bible today the same as the one of yesterday?  
PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2013 4:19 pm
Servant Reborn
The bit I have trouble believing is that God would his Word to be diluted by man's interpretations. Someone earlier posted one of the verses I was thinking of, and there's another one I was thinking of where someone says that we do not follow fables..but I have to look for it. The Bible has to be perfectly right, and we just fail to see all it's truth. The spirit reveals to us when it is time, right?

The alternative is some parts are wrong, which would cause me doubt. I suppose that brings the question can a perfect being (God) create a perfect book through an imperfect creatures (men) over thousands of years? Does man's free will to interpret and understand damage the book? Is the Bible today the same as the one of yesterday?

2 Peter 1:16  

jack0076970


Servant Reborn

Devout Worshipper

12,450 Points
  • Mark Twain 100
  • Forum Junior 100
  • Partygoer 500
PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2013 4:51 pm
jack0076970
Servant Reborn
The bit I have trouble believing is that God would his Word to be diluted by man's interpretations. Someone earlier posted one of the verses I was thinking of, and there's another one I was thinking of where someone says that we do not follow fables..but I have to look for it. The Bible has to be perfectly right, and we just fail to see all it's truth. The spirit reveals to us when it is time, right?

The alternative is some parts are wrong, which would cause me doubt. I suppose that brings the question can a perfect being (God) create a perfect book through an imperfect creatures (men) over thousands of years? Does man's free will to interpret and understand damage the book? Is the Bible today the same as the one of yesterday?

2 Peter 1:16
Yeah, that's it! Thanks!  
PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2013 7:23 pm
real eyes realize
Sachie Whitby
real eyes realize
Protestants or "sola scriptura" believers understand the concept of intercession; the only difference is that they limit the activity to living people, like the books of the bible do. What really puts doubt on "intercessory prayer from the dead" is the case of Abraham especially: as one of the patriarchs whom God made promises to and even called His friend in both Old and New Testaments (Isaiah 41:8; James 2:23 ), you would think he'd be in one of the prime positions to put in a good word for you, especially when, while he was alive, he intercessed on behalf of Sodom, bargaining with God to spare the wicked city. It was in his character to intercess for others—stranger or family, good or bad.


There's a specific part of Revelations which is cited as why it is okay to appeal to the saints for intercessory prayer but really, we're talking about a book which is wildly open to a variety of interpretations so posting up scripture is almost moot as different denominations will interpret it differently even to the extent as to if the book's predictions are good or something to be feared.

If we're all understanding that intercessory prayers are just that and that nobody is praying to saints like they're false idols, I'm totally cool here. It doesn't matter to me that protestants limit these kinds of prayers to those who are still living. <3


To someone who is sola scriptura, providing scripture is not moot razz I welcome it, please. Mostly because the body is supposed to be in agreement, sharing one mind (Philippians 2:2; Romans 15:6; 1 Peter 3:8 ) so if there's something else that makes a case for it, I would like it brought to my attention so that I can stop being in error and divisive over this issue. Perchance are you referring to Revelation 5:8? the prayers of the saints? Living people are called saints all throughout the new testament (i.e. Acts 9:13, Ephesians 1:1, Romans 1:7, et cetera), so if that's it, it's not making much of a case, if any, for the intercession of the dead specifically. So if you have a verse supporting this, again, please provide it. At the very least, it would be nice to know where fellow believers are getting these ideas.

I for one don't think the book of Revelation is open to a wide variety of interpretations since all of the symbols it uses are located elsewhere in other books of the bible (usually the books of other prophets like Isaiah, Zechariah and Daniel). We may not recognize all of the things it describes until it happens, sure, but it can't be so farfetch'd that it outright contradicts the rest of the scrolls/books/prophets.


I know for a fact that Revelation is open to interpretations as there are people who take it literally to the extent that they really do believe that one day, there's going to be this lamb with seven heads, many eyes and horns showing up. They don't read it as symbolic imagery and think it will all occur exactly as written.


I was thinking of Revelation 8:3-4 [KJV]: 3 And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne. 4 And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel's hand.


There's also a passage in Revelation where the martyers are engaging in imprecatory prayers [i.e. cursing prayers] where they are appealing to have those who have wronged them punished: Revelation 6:9-10: 9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: 10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?


If you're seriously interested in the subject of intercessory prayer from the Catholic view-point, he's an article [that I've put in spoiler text as it is quite long] that explains it far better than I can and even includes scripture citations.... but seriously, my only goal when I brought it up was to explain that we don't worship any of the saints.




Praying to the Saints

The historic Christian practice of asking our departed brothers and sisters in Christ—the saints—for their intercession has come under attack in the last few hundred years. Though the practice dates to the earliest days of Christianity and is shared by Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, the other Eastern Christians, and even some Anglicans—meaning that all-told it is shared by more than three quarters of the Christians on earth—it still comes under heavy attack from many within the Protestant movement that started in the sixteenth century.



Can They Hear Us?

One charge made against it is that the saints in heaven cannot even hear our prayers, making it useless to ask for their intercession. However, this is not true. As Scripture indicates, those in heaven are aware of the prayers of those on earth. This can be seen, for example, in Revelation 5:8, where John depicts the saints in heaven offering our prayers to God under the form of "golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints." But if the saints in heaven are offering our prayers to God, then they must be aware of our prayers. They are aware of our petitions and present them to God by interceding for us.

Some might try to argue that in this passage the prayers being offered were not addressed to the saints in heaven, but directly to God. Yet this argument would only strengthen the fact that those in heaven can hear our prayers, for then the saints would be aware of our prayers even when they are not directed to them!

In any event, it is clear from Revelation 5:8 that the saints in heaven do actively intercede for us. We are explicitly told by John that the incense they offer to God are the prayers of the saints. Prayers are not physical things and cannot be physically offered to God. Thus the saints in heaven are offering our prayers to God mentally. In other words, they are interceding.



One Mediator

Another charge commonly levelled against asking the saints for their intercession is that this violates the sole mediatorship of Christ, which Paul discusses: "For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. 2:5).

But asking one person to pray for you in no way violates Christ’s mediatorship, as can be seen from considering the way in which Christ is a mediator. First, Christ is a unique mediator between man and God because he is the only person who is both God and man. He is the only bridge between the two, the only God-man. But that role as mediator is not compromised in the least by the fact that others intercede for us. Furthermore, Christ is a unique mediator between God and man because he is the Mediator of the New Covenant (Heb. 9:15, 12:24), just as Moses was the mediator (Greek mesitas) of the Old Covenant (Gal. 3:19–20).

The intercession of fellow Christians—which is what the saints in heaven are—also clearly does not interfere with Christ’s unique mediatorship because in the four verses immediately preceding 1 Timothy 2:5, Paul says that Christians should interceed: "First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way. This is good, and pleasing to God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:1–4). Clearly, then, intercessory prayers offered by Christians on behalf of others is something "good and pleasing to God," not something infringing on Christ’s role as mediator.



"No Contact with the dead"

Sometimes Fundamentalists object to asking our fellow Christians in heaven to pray for us by declaring that God has forbidden contact with the dead in passages such as Deuteronomy 18:10–11. In fact, he has not, because he at times has given it—for example, when he had Moses and Elijah appear with Christ to the disciples on the Mount of Transfiguration (Matt. 17:3). What God has forbidden is necromantic practice of conjuring up spirits. "There shall not be found among you any one who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, any one who practices divination, a soothsayer, or an augur, or a sorcerer, or a charmer, or a medium, or a wizard, or a necromancer. . . . For these nations, which you are about to dispossess, give heed to soothsayers and to diviners; but as for you, the Lord your God has not allowed you so to do. The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brethren—him you shall heed" (Deut. 18:10–15).

God thus indicates that one is not to conjure the dead for purposes of gaining information; one is to look to God’s prophets instead. Thus one is not to hold a seance. But anyone with an ounce of common sense can discern the vast qualitative difference between holding a seance to have the dead speak through you and a son humbly saying at his mother’s grave, "Mom, please pray to Jesus for me; I’m having a real problem right now." The difference between the two is the difference between night and day. One is an occult practice bent on getting secret information; the other is a humble request for a loved one to pray to God on one’s behalf.



Overlooking the Obvious

Some objections to the concept of prayer to the saints betray restricted notions of heaven. One comes from anti-Catholic Loraine Boettner:

"How, then, can a human being such as Mary hear the prayers of millions of Roman Catholics, in many different countries, praying in many different languages, all at the same time?

"Let any priest or layman try to converse with only three people at the same time and see how impossible that is for a human being. . . . The objections against prayers to Mary apply equally against prayers to the saints. For they too are only creatures, infinitely less than God, able to be at only one place at a time and to do only one thing at a time.

"How, then, can they listen to and answer thousands upon thousands of petitions made simultaneously in many different lands and in many different languages? Many such petitions are expressed, not orally, but only mentally, silently. How can Mary and the saints, without being like God, be present everywhere and know the secrets of all hearts?" (Roman Catholicism, 142-143).

If being in heaven were like being in the next room, then of course these objections would be valid. A mortal, unglorified person in the next room would indeed suffer the restrictions imposed by the way space and time work in our universe. But the saints are not in the next room, and they are not subject to the time/space limitations of this life.

This does not imply that the saints in heaven therefore must be omniscient, as God is, for it is only through God’s willing it that they can communicate with others in heaven or with us. And Boettner’s argument about petitions arriving in different languages is even further off the mark. Does anyone really think that in heaven the saints are restricted to the King’s English? After all, it is God himself who gives the gift of tongues and the interpretation of tongues. Surely those saints in Revelation understand the prayers they are shown to be offering to God.

The problem here is one of what might be called a primitive or even childish view of heaven. It is certainly not one on which enough intellectual rigor has been exercised. A good introduction to the real implications of the afterlife may be found in Frank Sheed’s book Theology and Sanity, which argues that sanity depends on an accurate appreciation of reality, and that includes an accurate appreciation of what heaven is really like. And once that is known, the place of prayer to the saints follows.



"Directly to Jesus"

Some may grant that the previous objections to asking the saints for their intercession do not work and may even grant that the practice is permissible in theory, yet they may question it on other grounds, asking why one would want to ask the saints to pray for one. "Why not pray directly to Jesus?" they ask.

The answer is: "Of course one should pray directly to Jesus!" But that does not mean it is not also a good thing to ask others to pray for one as well. Ultimately, the "go-directly-to-Jesus" objection boomerangs back on the one who makes it: Why should we ask any Christian, in heaven or on earth, to pray for us when we can ask Jesus directly? If the mere fact that we can go straight to Jesus proved that we should ask no Christian in heaven to pray for us then it would also prove that we should ask no Christian on earth to pray for us.

Praying for each other is simply part of what Christians do. As we saw, in 1 Timothy 2:1–4, Paul strongly encouraged Christians to intercede for many different things, and that passage is by no means unique in his writings. Elsewhere Paul directly asks others to pray for him (Rom. 15:30–32, Eph. 6:18–20, Col. 4:3, 1 Thess. 5:25, 2 Thess. 3:1), and he assured them that he was praying for them as well (2 Thess. 1:11). Most fundamentally, Jesus himself required us to pray for others, and not only for those who asked us to do so (Matt. 5:44).

Since the practice of asking others to pray for us is so highly recommended in Scripture, it cannot be regarded as superfluous on the grounds that one can go directly to Jesus. The New Testament would not recommend it if there were not benefits coming from it. One such benefit is that the faith and devotion of the saints can support our own weaknesses and supply what is lacking in our own faith and devotion. Jesus regularly supplied for one person based on another person’s faith (e.g., Matt. 8:13, 15:28, 17:15–18, Mark 9:17–29, Luke 8:49–55). And it goes without saying that those in heaven, being free of the body and the distractions of this life, have even greater confidence and devotion to God than anyone on earth.

Also, God answers in particular the prayers of the righteous. James declares: "The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects. Elijah was a man of like nature with ourselves and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth. Then he prayed again and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth its fruit" (Jas. 5:16–1 cool . Yet those Christians in heaven are more righteous, since they have been made perfect to stand in God’s presence (Heb. 12:22-23), than anyone on earth, meaning their prayers would be even more efficacious.

Having others praying for us thus is a good thing, not something to be despised or set aside. Of course, we should pray directly to Christ with every pressing need we have (cf. John 14:13–14). That’s something the Catholic Church strongly encourages. In fact, the prayers of the Mass, the central act of Catholic worship, are directed to God and Jesus, not the saints. But this does not mean that we should not also ask our fellow Christians, including those in heaven, to pray with us.

In addition to our prayers directly to God and Jesus (which are absolutely essential to the Christian life), there are abundant reasons to ask our fellow Christians in heaven to pray for us. The Bible indicates that they are aware of our prayers, that they intercede for us, and that their prayers are effective (else they would not be offered). It is only narrow-mindedness that suggests we should refrain from asking our fellow Christians in heaven to do what we already know them to be anxious and capable of doing.



In Heaven and On Earth

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

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

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

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004
IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

 

Sachie Whitby

King Vampire

18,200 Points
  • Cat Fancier 100
  • Alchemy Level 10 100
  • Cool Cat 500

Garland-Green

Friendly Gaian

PostPosted: Thu Apr 04, 2013 2:19 am
False Dichotomy
While I understand and support the message of the anti-establishment reformation, I will draw my line at sola scriptura.

You say the bible itself claims it is god-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative, but this is a lie. No book in the bible directly claims this (although the Torah is close). Look for it all you want, you won't find it.

It is not the word of God, it is the word of man. Where Martin Luther was right was that the Catholic establishment was also founded on the word of man. Where he erred was in saying the bible was the word of God. He had no proof, biblical or otherwise.

I go further than Martin Luther would've ever gone. While I respect and revere the Bible, it is not infallible. To say so is dangerous to the faith itself. It is our most powerful instrument for teaching, but it is not flawless.

You must walk honest, and uncertain. Simplicity and blind faith do not hold ground against reason. If you want to hang on to some infallible pillar of truth, you would do wise not to fall into this trap. If you truly must know what is authoritative, then you must pray.

It says all scripture is God-Breathed. It doesn't say just scripture that is in the original language. You go way too far. Once you eat away the trustworthiness of the Bible where does that leave the gospel? Can we trust that it was delivered to us as God intended because it was delivered to us by fallible men? You forget that though man did translate and pen the Bible they didn't do so on their own initiative. Assuming this is denying what Bible history, archaeology, and an incredibly wast number of manuscripts tells us.

The Bible is comprised of 66 books, it had about 40 writers. What is so remarkable about it is that it tells a consistent story from Genesis to Revelation. Written by different men, in vastly different time periods who perhaps did not know that their book would be a part of a collection of books called the Bible.

Through out the Bible, and I would dare to say through out history God has enabled people to do his will. In the Old Testament he made it so that there would be people who were competent to make the various equipment needed in the tabernacle, just one example. I would say that his will is more important than any tabernacle, and I don't see why He would not want to be involved in the creation of the Bible.

“This book had to be written by one of three people: good men, bad men or God. It couldn’t have been written by good men because they said it was inspired by the revelation of God. Good men don’t lie and deceive. It couldn’t have been written by bad men because bad men would not write something that would condemn themselves. It leaves only one conclusion. It was given by divine inspiration of God.”
John Wesley

The New Testament is constantly under attack and its reliability and accuracy are often contested by critics. But, if the critics want to disregard the New Testament, then they must also disregard other ancient writings by Plato, Aristotle, and Homer. This is because the New Testament documents are better-preserved and more numerous than any other ancient writings. Because they are so numerous, they can be cross checked for accuracy... and they are very consistent.

There are presently 5,686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for the New Testament. If we were to compare the number of New Testament manuscripts to other ancient writings, we find that the New Testament manuscripts far outweigh the others in quantity.

The internal consistency of the New Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure. That is an amazing accuracy. In addition there are over 19,000 copies in the Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic languages. The total supporting New Testament manuscript base is over 24,000.

Almost all biblical scholars agree that the New Testament documents were all written before the close of the First Century. If Jesus was crucified in 30 A.D., then that means that the entire New Testament was completed within 70 years. This is important because it means there were plenty of people around when the New Testament documents were penned who could have contested the writings. In other words, those who wrote the documents knew that if they were inaccurate, plenty of people would have pointed it out. But, we have absolutely no ancient documents contemporary with the First Century that contest the New Testament texts.

Furthermore, another important aspect of this discussion is the fact that we have a fragment of the gospel of John that dates back to around 29 years from the original writing (John Rylands Papyri 125 A.D.). This is extremely close to the original writing date. This is simply unheard of in any other ancient writing and it demonstrates that the Gospel of John is a First Century document.

‘The inerrancy of the Bible means simply that the Bible tells the truth, and can be trusted. Truth can and does include approximations, free quotations, language of appearances, and different accounts of the same event as long as those do not contradict.’ (Charles C. Ryrie, What You Should Know About Inerrancy, p. 16). At the Chicago meeting in October 1978, the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy issued the following statement on inerrancy: ‘Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God’s acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God’s saving grace in individual lives’ (James Montgomery Boice, Does Inerrancy Matter?, Oakland: International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, 1979, p. 13.)  
Reply
Questions & Answers

Goto Page: 1 2 [>] [»|]
 
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum