Angela Crittle - 19 July 2008 08:30 PM

Rest assured. I am definitely not saying there is diversity in truth.

Hi again Angela. I was really in no doubt about that :).

Robert,

Robert ian Williams - 19 July 2008 05:26 PM

I still see that no one tackles my question.

Perhaps because you do not tackle theirs?

Timbo

Robert,

Robert ian Williams - 19 July 2008 09:56 AM

The Saints are just men made perfect

Where do you get this interpretation of what a saint is? What biblical evidence is there to support this interpretation?

Robert ian Williams - 19 July 2008 09:56 AM

If i can ask you to pray with me, I can ask a Saint in heaven to pray to God for me...the petition is pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death.

I keep asking this question of many catholics, to no avail, so here goes one more time: what evidence is there that Mary the mother of Jesus, the apostle Peter, my grandfather Charlie or any other person who died as a believing Christian can actually hear what we pray here on earth? (And on this basis, I am sure you would approve of my asking my grandfather Charlie to pray for me?)

Timbo

Angela I believe in justification by faith , but not justification by Faith alone.
No Christian figure teaches it before Luther’s alleged re-discovery.
It is simply not Biblical, and Bob’s attempt to call it a developed
doctrinal term like the Trinity would be laughable if it was not so sad.
I am not familiar with Pierced for our transgressions.

Wouldn’t the episeles be full of the term faith alone.. For ye all know ye are justified by faith alone,etc But te only pkace it is extant is inits denial !

However Evangelical scholar Alistair Mcgrath in his monumental two volume work Iustia dei, calls justification by faith alone a theological novum and shows how Augustine’s view of grace is in line with the Catholic tradition and not the reformed.

Timbo , you keep saying I haven’t answered your questions, but I have!

My authority is Christ’s living voixce in his magisterium., and his living word, both enscrip=turated and in sacred tradition.

By all means pray for your uncle.....

Doesn’t the very phrase “justified by faith without the deeds of the law” (Rom. 3:28) amount to much the same thing?  So with Rom. 4:6 and Gal. 2:16.

Craig Schwarze - 18 July 2008 09:51 AM

Some beliefs (like papal indulgences) are so absurd that satire is the appropriate response.

I haven’t seen an adequate response about indulgences, so I went looking on the WYD site :

WYD plenary indulgence

Those in Heaven don’t need our help, but those in Purgatory do, so we can receive an indulgence for ourselves or for them. The saints in heaven, particularly Mary, the Mother of God, can be of great assistance to us.

The idea that “we can receive an indulgence for ourselves or for them “ probably influenced the Mormons’ idea of getting your long dead ancestors ‘baptised’. Neither practices can be found in the Bible.

The above quote from the WYD site indicates in a few words just some of the key differences that confront us: the existence of Purgatory, the receiving of ‘indulgences’ to save dead sinners’ souls ( this practice was so misused in past history by Popes and the Vatican at large - unless the selling of indulgences then was ‘inspired’ from Heaven above - but that raises other questions surely ) , and the veneration and role of Mary in answering our prayers. I find no mention of any of these in the BIble.

To have faith is a great thing - but that faith must surely be based on substance and truth. And when it comes to the truth, the best book to read is the Bible. Martin Luther certainly thought so.

In an attempt to answer praying to ‘dead’ people.  Robert is so right when he says that those in Heaven are more alive than we are.  They have completed the race. 
Let’s look at the Rich Man and Lazarus - Luke 16:19-31:  Here we not only have an example of the dead being able to communicate but also the existence of a place where we are purified.  Abraham was somewhere - he was not in Heaven as the gates were not yet open.  Jesus went and preached to the imprisoned spirits when he died so that they could here the gospel.  These spirits were not in Hell.  Call it whatever you like.  Catholics call it purgatory.

What about the crowd of witness we have cheering us on (Hebrews).  Look at Rev 5:1-14.  Those prayers are not prayers of those already in Heaven.  No need to pray in Heaven.  We just worship in Heaven.  Prayers are for the living on earth. I could quote from Maccabees and Tobit, however, protestants removed those books from the Canon as a result of Luther, so that would not be an argument you would even consider.

Hi again Donna. I’m not wanting to be argumentative but I’d like to suggest that there are other ways to understand the passages you’ve quoted (directly and indirectly).

Donna Green - 20 July 2008 12:41 PM

Let’s look at the Rich Man and Lazarus - Luke 16:19-31:  Here we not only have an example of the dead being able to communicate but also the existence of a place where we are purified.

I think we need to be vary wary about making conclusions about life beyond death from this parable. As in any parable or metaphor it’s wrong to make more from it than the specific point or lesson that is conveys. The specific point of this parable is that even someone rising from the dead will not convince some (many) about the judgement that is to come.

Jesus went and preached to the imprisoned spirits when he died so that they could here the gospel.  These spirits were not in Hell.  Call it whatever you like.  Catholics call it purgatory.

I presume you’re referring to this passage in 1 Peter 3:18-20. It’s a tricky passage and I’m not really sure what Peter meant by it. However, some things are clear and the rest remains speculation. Peter states that after Jesus death and presumably before his resurrection, Jesus spent time explaining (preaching?) to those who had died in rebellion the significance of his incarnation, life of perfect obedience and death. There is absolutely no indication here that Jesus was preaching to the repentant (who might be suffering in purgatory for a while for their unpaid sins). That Peter says that Jesus spoke to those who died in the great flood of Noah is a very firm indication that Jesus was speaking specifically to the unrepentant. There are many passages of the scripture (eg Matt 24:34-51; 2 Corinthians 5:10) which make it very clear that judgement is based on a life of faith (and works, the outworking of a genuine faith), and that when we die, it is too late for those who’ve ignored God (the unrepentant) to later repent. I think the best we can make of this passage is that Peter sees Jesus as the fair judge, explaining to the guilty the magnitude of their crimes and the consequences of them.

What about the crowd of witness we have cheering us on (Hebrews).

Are you referring to Hebrews 12:1? If so, then certainly the context of the preceding chapter implies that the crowd are our spiritual forefathers (and foremothers since even Sarah and Rahab rate a mention!), and not the heavenly host of angels. However, are they witnesses of us as you seem to indicate or rather (as I believe the context firmly indicates) witnesses to the truth of our faith from which we can gain encouragement and great assurance of the promises of God?

Donna Green - 20 July 2008 12:41 PM

In an attempt to answer praying to ‘dead’ people.  Robert is so right when he says that those in Heaven are more alive than we are.  They have completed the race. 
Let’s look at the Rich Man and Lazarus - Luke 16:19-31:  Here we not only have an example of the dead being able to communicate but also the existence of a place where we are purified.  Abraham was somewhere - he was not in Heaven as the gates were not yet open.  Jesus went and preached to the imprisoned spirits when he died so that they could here the gospel.  These spirits were not in Hell.  Call it whatever you like.  Catholics call it purgatory.

What about the crowd of witness we have cheering us on (Hebrews).  Look at Rev 5:1-14.  Those prayers are not prayers of those already in Heaven.  No need to pray in Heaven.  We just worship in Heaven.  Prayers are for the living on earth. I could quote from Maccabees and Tobit, however, protestants removed those books from the Canon as a result of Luther, so that would not be an argument you would even consider.

Sorry to butt in here, Donna, but as an aside, what protestants call the apocryphal books of the bible weren’t actually formally included in the canon until the Council of Trent, which was after the advent of Luther’s reformation. It was not Luther who removed them, rather it was Rome who formally added them and made anyone who refused to accept their authority anathema. Prior to this time, their authority was by no means a done deal within the church.

There are a few issues with your use of Luke 16:19ff: firstly, it was a parable taught by Jesus prior to his death and resurrection, so you must keep in mind that those events are still to come in this narrative. The “even if” of verse 31 is not a statement of whether it is possible for the dead to communicate with the living, or vice versa - it is a rhetorical device to illustrate the point. By his parable, Jesus is calling people to repent and believe in himself, believe in the Word of God (which “Moses and the prophets” refers to) before it is too late. Verse 31 is a foreshadowing of Jesus’ own resurrection, and the fact that even with his own return from the dead, people still refuse to believe in him. The purpose of the whole parable is to point to the finality of death, and the inability to change anything once you are there. The rich man cannot remove himself from torment. His opportunity passed when he ceased to be alive.There is no opportunity for him to “work off” his sins (see verse 26 - no-one is able to cross the chasm). Neither is Lazarus in a state of purgatory. 

To claim this parable as evidence for being able to communicate with or pray to the dead is an exegetical fallacy. In reality the parable gives no evidence other than to say the dead can talk to each other.

Also, Revelation 5:1-14 has nothing about dead people “cheering us on”, it appears rather that the elders(v8), angels (v11), and every creature (v13) are solely focussed on worshipping God and the Lamb. There’s no cheering the christians on earth there.

Edit: Sorry, just realised you were referring to Revelation 5:8 - the “prayers of the saints”. We take saints to mean all people who are followers of Christ (I can give you biblical justification for this view). So we are part of the general worship of God in verse 13, and our prayers are symbolically depicted here as incense before the throne. I still don’t see any strong biblical justification for the RC practice of praying to the saints.

Angus
Is Lazarus the same Lazarus that Jesus rose from the dead.  If he is, then this scripture in Luke is not a metaphor or a parable. 
Why should I be wary about making specific conclusions about life after death from this passage.  It reads very plainly to me.  This is not something novel to Jews.  Don’t forget who was with Jesus at the transfiguration.  I understand the message of the passage, but you cannot ignore what else is going on. 

1 Peter 3:18-20 -You say you are not sure what Peter means here.  So why argue against my case?  Is this a case of deep seated prejudices that don’t allow you to really see what is being said?

You say you think Peter is speculating about what Jesus was saying.  This is the Word of God! There is no speculation in it.  Why would such a text be in the bible if it were not to be taken on some literal level.

Jesus would not be speaking to the unrepentant - these would be in hell.  No point!  Jesus would have been speaking to those faithful servants who had not heard the Gospel.  Abraham, Moses, Noah, etc.

You make too much of the text.  It’s pure and simple to me.

Take a look at 1 Cor 3:15 - Paul is speaking about the day judgment where each man’s work will be tried.  This trial happens after death.  What happens if a man’s work fails the test?  “He will be the loser; and yet he himself will be saved, though only as men are saved by passing through fire”.  Now this loss, this penalty, cannot refer to consignment to hell, since no one is saved there; and heaven cannot be meant, since there is no suffering (fire) there.

Hebrews 12 - Yes the crowds are those witnesses gone before us.  That is what the text says.  You ask ‘are they witnesses to us or witnesses to the truth of our faith”.  You claim the latter.  “WE have a large crowd of witnesses around US” is what the text says.  Why complicate it?  Of course they are witnessing the faith in us.  But who are they cheering on.  US!

Kirsten
Sorry.  You are wrong regarding the canon of the bible.  The Council of Carthage in 397 formulated the canon, influenced by Augustine.  Take a look at the historical evidence.  See what happened at that Council.  See what books were included.  The same ones the Catholic Church use today.

Kirsten the Council of Trent did not decide a new bible, but were clarifying that the bible contained the same books as it did from the early Church.  The reason the Council of Trent did this was because there were heretical versions of the bible going around at that time.  Usually when a Church Council declares something, it is not putting forward something innovative, but clearing up any doubts in people’s minds as to what the Church teaches.

Luther is primarily responsible for the exclusion of several books from the original canon.  By his own words he was quoted as saying the epistle of James was an epistle of straw.  He did not think Jude or Hebrews were on the same footing as the Gospels.  Read his biography!  Or read Dr Westcott’s, The Bible in the Church.  Luther had the word ‘alone’ inserted in Paul’s words to add weight to his belief that we are justified by faith alone.

Dan, you can’t isolate Romans ch3,v28 from the context of the whole Scriptures.
The Apostle is writing of the Jewish ceremonial law...furthermore it has to be seen in the context of the explicit denial in James that we are not justified by faith alone. Holy Scripture is a whole and does not contradict its self. A text without a context is a pre-text.

We are still under the Divine Law and will be judged as to the deeds we have performed in the body.

Robert
Correct, Robert.  Jesus came not to abolish the old law but to fulfil.

Donna,

The responsibility is not solely Luther’s, as you would like to put it. Jerome himself distinguished between the Hebrew OT and the LXX, suggesting that - while edifying - the apocryphal books did not hold the same level of canonical inspiration as the other books of the OT. As I mentioned in my previous post, the inclusion of the apocryphal books as equal in authority with the rest of the OT was by no means a done deal until Trent.

regards,

Kristen (not Kirsten)

Kristen
Sorry about spelling. 

I am sorry, you are incorrect about the Council of Trent ratifying the canon of books. This is a total misunderstanding of what the Councils of the Church do.  They do not create new doctrine or change old.

Look at the Council of Carthage.  Those apocryphal books are listed.  The Council of Trent just re-affirmed what the Council of Cathage said.  The Decree of Damasus in 382 AD also lists these books.  Luther is largely responsible by his very own words.  Jerome did not seek to include or exclude any books.  What he may have said about a particular book of the bible is irrelevant.  It is not the opinion of Jerome, a Pope or anyone which books are included or excluded.  The Church decided.