Robert ian Williams - 20 July 2008 06:01 PM

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.

Almost totally agreed Robert, but I believe it was you who asked there the phrase “justification by faith alone” came in the Bible.  The mere occurrence of a phrase, by itself, proves little.

I say “almost totally” because I dispute that Rom. 3:28 refers to the “Jewish ceremonial” law.  It seem to me that here it’s you who’ve isolated the verse from the entire chapter preceding it, and indeed chs. 1 and 2 as well.  With the sole exception of circumcision, which Paul seems to treat as neither here nor there for his discussion, even “isolating” it from what he calls “the law” (2:25-29), I find not a single reference to anything that Christians would consider specifically “ceremonial” law - even when he specifically discusses the moral failings of the Jews in ch. 2.

On the contrary, the famous “sin list” of citations from the Psalms and Isaiah consists entirely of bread-and-butter bedrock moral concepts which plenty of non-Christians would have no trouble understanding and accepting as pertinent.

Christian era Judaism hated Christianity as a heresy. it cursed it and cast out its adherents. It hated te fact that the Church used the Septuagint, and at Jamnia it officialy took on the Hebrew Canon as the canon for Rabbinic ( pharasiac) Judaism. It particulaly disliked the use of the word Virgin in the Isaiah prophecy.

Protestantism because of the whim of luther adopted the Jewish canon..Wyclif and the Waldensian translations all included the deutero-canonical books, which you call apochryphal.

Dan , i ‘m being called to the lunch table, but go to the Catholic Answers web site and tap in justificaton by faith alone and you will get a thorough and Biblical refutation.  of the use of Romans 3 v 28.

Robert,

Robert ian Williams - 20 July 2008 05:14 AM

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

Then why do I have to keep on repeating my questions until you address what I have actually asked and got the details correct?

Robert ian Williams - 20 July 2008 05:14 AM

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

Is this your attempt to answer my question about where you got your interpretation of what a saint is, particularly my request for some biblical evidence? If so, may I suggest it is nowhere near detailed enough to even begin to be convincing. Please try again.

Robert ian Williams - 20 July 2008 05:14 AM

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

1. Charlie was my grandfather, not my uncle, as I clearly wrote.
2. I did not ask if I could pray for him, but whether according to your stated beliefs, whether I could ask him to pray for me, as I clearly wrote. Please try again.

And still no answer on what evidence there is that faithful Christians who have died and are currently in heaven are able to hear our prayers.

Timbo

Donna,

Thanks again for your detailed replies seeking to answer the points we are raising - I recognise this must be taking a significant amount of time and effort for you to do.

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.

And just how does this show that they can hear our requests for them to pray for us? 

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.  Abraham was somewhere - he was not in Heaven as the gates were not yet open.

Even leaving aside the issue of whether Jesus always spoke of literal examples in his parables, this does not even cover the example of a living person here on Earth asking someone in heaven to pray for them, as the rich man was already dead. And how does it suggest there is a place where we (I presume you mean the dead) are purified? The rich man is told there is no way he can cross over to the place where Lazarus now is (v.26)

Donna Green - 20 July 2008 12:41 PM

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.

How do you know that this prison that Peter refers to is not hell? And if the passage is as plain to read and interpret as you claim, then it only applies to the spirits who were disobedient in the time of the flood (1 Peter 3:20).

Donna Green - 20 July 2008 12:41 PM

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

Hebrews 12:1 (and following verses) says nothing about the crowd of witnesses “cheering us on”, let alone us having the ability to communicate with them. 

Donna Green - 20 July 2008 12:41 PM

Look at Rev 5:1-14.  Those prayers are not prayers of those already in Heaven.

So you at least agree that saints are not just people who have died, but are living believers here on Earth? Even if you take this passage literally - as you appear to me to be doing - how can the twenty-four elders hear incense? Even if they could hear the incense they are carrying, shouldn’t we then identify who they are and ask them to pray for us? Or do you believe Mary the mother of Jesus is one of the tenty-four elders?

Donna Green - 20 July 2008 12:41 PM

No need to pray in Heaven ... Prayers are for the living on earth.

Then why ask Mary, Peter, or whoever else to pray for you? 

Donna Green - 20 July 2008 12:41 PM

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.

With all due respect, Donna, your quoting even from the Scriptures we both accept as canonical is far from convincing when you fail to show how it can be used to support your arguments; more so when the passages you quote tend to argue against your beliefs.

Cheers,

Timbo

Robert ian Williams - 20 July 2008 10:55 PM

Christian era Judaism hated Christianity as a heresy. it cursed it and cast out its adherents. It hated te fact that the Church used the Septuagint, and at Jamnia it officialy took on the Hebrew Canon as the canon for Rabbinic ( pharasiac) Judaism. It particulaly disliked the use of the word Virgin in the Isaiah prophecy.

Having made a rod for its own back by translating debatable almah by unambiguous parthenos, Judaism really ended up crying over spilled milk!

Robert ian Williams - 20 July 2008 10:55 PM

Protestantism because of the whim of luther adopted the Jewish canon..Wyclif and the Waldensian translations all included the deutero-canonical books, which you call apochryphal.

Why are you introducing this subject at this point?

Robert ian Williams - 20 July 2008 10:55 PM

Dan , i ‘m being called to the lunch table, but go to the Catholic Answers web site and tap in justificaton by faith alone and you will get a thorough and Biblical refutation.  of the use of Romans 3 v 28.

I followed your advice and typed that phrase but then typed in Romans 3:28 because I was particularly interested to see what arguments there were for understanding law there as “Jewish ceremonial” law as you stated.

Looking through the first article that came up, at http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0303sbs.asp, doesn’t answer that question although it does intimate that “law” in Galatians is the law of circumcision.

However as Romans is Paul’s fullest exposition of these things, I reckon it’s pretty much self-contained in terms of definitions of key terms.  So at present I think my point stands!

Sorry Robert, I realise you were responding to a previous-page discussion on the canon.

I forgot to add above that whereas the linked article says that Luther added “alone” to his translation of Rom. 3:28, the Luter Bibel 1545 at www.biblegateway.com doesn’t.  That was the year before he died, and I trust that he approved not (any longer) adding that word, even if it was reasonable in terms of the sense of the text.

Tim Allen - 21 July 2008 01:05 AM

And still no answer on what evidence there is that faithful Christians who have died and are curently in heaven are able to hear our prayers.

Timbo

Don’t you know yet Timmy?  All you need are at least five Christian bishops of the first three centuries to say that they believe it, and that should be enough to satisfy any logical person.

Don’t you call me Timmy! It’s TimBO, Danny boy!

Quoting Danny

All you need are at least five Christian bishops of the first three centuries to say that they believe it, and that should be enough to satisfy any logical person

Or failing that, just one person called Calvin.

Melinda Seed - 21 July 2008 02:13 AM

Quoting Danny

All you need are at least five Christian bishops of the first three centuries to say that they believe it, and that should be enough to satisfy any logical person

Or failing that, just one person called Calvin.

Who formally believes something just because Calvin did?

Tim Allen - 21 July 2008 01:59 AM

Don’t you call me Timmy! It’s TimBO, Danny boy!

Just that there was a Timothy Allen at my school whom everybody called Timmy.

Dear Dan, Please try Catholicconvert.com for an even better exposition.

If you go back on the Catholic answers site ..go to the radio programmmes and tap inthe issue and the prograammes will, come up, and you can hear them on real player.

Timbo...I wouldn’t pray to your Grandad. , I would pray for him, If I were you.

However the Church doesn’t stop us praying to others , who may be in Heaven. for instance I visited Peterborogh Cathedral and saw the grave of Catherine of Arogan ( a greatly wronged Lady) and I prayed for her and to her… I think she should be the patron of all wronged deserted spouses.

Not that I am divorced.. I still feel for her.

Interstingly prayer to a non canonised saint, can be used in the eveidence procesdure for canonisation.

Robert ian Williams - 21 July 2008 04:22 AM

Interestingly prayer to a non canonised saint, can be used in the evidence procedure for canonisation.

Wikopedia reminds us that :

In many Protestant churches, the word “Saint” is used more generally to refer to anyone who is a Christian ?

This is similar in usage to Paul’s numerous references in the New Testament of the Bible. In this sense, anyone who is within the Body of Christ (i.e., a professing Christian) is a ‘saint’ because of their relationship with Jesus.

Robert,

Robert ian Williams - 21 July 2008 04:22 AM

Timbo...I wouldn’t pray to your Grandad. , I would pray for him, If I were you.

Three strikes, and you’re out Robert. One more chance to read what I am actually asking, rather than giving an irrelevant answer.

I am NOT asking if I should pray to him. I am asking if I could ask him to pray for me, just as your Catholic teaching formally says you can ask Mary to pray for you ... however, taking on board Donna Green’s comments on how many catholics get their own doctrine wrong, it is interesting to note that you keep using the expression “praying to” (in reference to faithful Christians who have died and are believed to now be in heaven), which she has formerly pointed out is not what the church of Rome teaches:

Robert ian Williams - 21 July 2008 04:22 AM

However the Church doesn’t stop us praying to others , who may be in Heaven. for instance I visited Peterborogh Cathedral and saw the grave of Catherine of Arogan ( a greatly wronged Lady) and I prayed for her and to her… I think she should be the patron of all wronged deserted spouses ... Interstingly prayer to a non canonised saint

Much as I am reticent to ask another question and expect it to be addressed, why would you pray for someone who has already left this earth?

Donna,

Given Robert and Jude Jones have clearly expressed beliefs in these forums that are in conflict with the official teaching of the church of Rome, will you be seeking to correct their erroneous beliefs just as you seek to correct those of us here who are Protestants?

Timbo

Tim
I don’t seek to correct any protestant.  The only reason I’m on this forum is as a result of reading an article from Dean Jensen which did not tell the truth about Catholicism.  If protestants don’t have the intestinal fortitude to cope with having their views questioned, perhaps they should refrain from making comments that are untrue and sometimes quite hurtful regarding Catholicism.  Nothing you could say opposing Catholicism would shock me.  I’ve heard it all before.  But every time I’ve given a defense in the past, generally exception is taken.  I want to share, most of all, and see all Christians as brothers and sisters in Christ.  We share much.

I’m not sure where I have stated that what Robert or Jude said was against the teaching of the Catholic Church.  I think you misunderstood what I was saying about the passage in Hebrews and also in Revelations.  The saints in heaven can pray for us.  Just like you can pray for me.  When I ask you to pray for me, am I committing a sin.  Do I take away from Christ being the one mediator?  It’s the “Jesus and me” approach to Christianity that prevents protestants seeing the beautiful doctrine of the Communion of Saints.

It’s the “Jesus and me” approach to Christianity that prevents protestants seeing the beautiful doctrine of the Communion of Saints.

No, I think it’s the Bible’s clear teaching that attempting to communicate with the dead is wrong.