About the Dead in Christ/Saintly Intercession

And that is why I say it is easier and more scriptural as well as historical to say that the saints are simply unaware of us. We know that the Jews never prayed to Moses or to Aaron, and neither did Christ, for one moment in his life, nor did his apostles.

 

- @Spherelink

We don't know that. We know of no such instance in the Bible (at least, I don't), but that doesn't mean that it never happened.

Also, the reason for this is that, prior to Christ, "dead" Jews like Moses and Aaron were not yet in Heaven, but in a place historically referred to as the Limbo of the Fathers. Remember that Christ descended (Nicene Creed, Apostles' Creed) and offered souls the opportunity to accept Him (1 Peter 3:18-20). He did this because "no one comes to the Father but through [Him]" (John 14:6), and it would hardly be fair for said souls to be automatically damned.

"It is not right that these should be condemned without trial, and that those alone who lived after the coming (of Christ) should have the advantage of the divine righteousness." - Clement of Alexandria

God isn't going to ask for a lower being's intercession. God needs no such assistance.

Again, we don't know this. But still, the Apostles were in a unique position.

 

Trying to say that the Bible can speak from silence is a meaningless hermeneutic that could be used to argue anything. "Christ told his apostles that a later group of Christians would erringly initiate a practice of praying to a a divine pantheon similar to that of the pagans around them. Just because the Bible doesn't literally say this doesn't mean it didn't happen."

What about all of the non-apostolic clergy like the early bishops and presbyters of the NT? What about the post-apostolic Didache? Clement, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Polycarp?

 

- @Spherelink

True, but that's not what I'm arguing. I'm saying that the Bible doesn't contradict the practice, and in fact, supports it in many places (examples of this are all over this thread). Add to that the strong entrenchment of the practice in Tradition, and I see no reason to find it objectionable.

There's a hefty selection of quotes from the Church Fathers on the subject. Here's a few.

Unless you can prove me wrong on some crucial point, history and logic are both on this side of the argument.

 

Now now. The Bible contradicts it in just the way I have mentioned. Whether or not we agree that the practice existed in the apostolic era; say I adopt the assumptions of your church; what still remains is the inescapable fact that God, in writing Scripture, didn't think this important enough in the the devotional life of the holiest saints in the history of the church, to be mentioned.

I am afraid that none of the authors or writings I mentioned are on that list. The earliest true mentions begin in the 3rd century if we assume a correct transmission of texts (which is by no means certain given Roman Catholic history).

Contrary to it I would posit the uninterrupted practice of the apostolic Fathers, the Apostles and Christ himself. He didn't need to seek intercession in order to advise it, now did he? Think about it... even within your own theological framework, you cannot avoid the fact that Christ, God, in teaching his flock what true devotion consists of, omitted to mention this practice altogether. I would then add to it the last 500 years of uninterrupted Protestant practice. The history and tradition of non-intercession is therefore quite comparable with that of intercession. Plus we have holier witnesses.

 

- @Spherelink

A contradiction is something that makes two things incompatible. Silence on a subject from one source does not negate another source's voice on the subject.

And I'm sure that you checked in advance to ensure that none of them would.

On that not-so-polite-or-accurate implication: you would have no Bible, if it weren't for Catholic history.

I addressed this earlier:

"God isn't going to ask for a lower being's intercession. God needs no such assistance."

For God to ask for a lower being's intercession, even to give an example for even lower beings, goes against his omnipotent nature. He CAN'T honestly do it.

The practice of seeking the intercessions of saints in Heaven is very much present even in Protestant (especially Anglican) history.

No, it's not. I very much doubt that many Church Fathers spoke out against the practice of seeking intercessions -- if I'm wrong, please inform me. They were probably silent, if not in favor. Meanwhile, many spoke in favor of it. One side must be right, and the other side must be wrong.

Augustine (in favor of the Church's position) vs. Martin Luther (largely in favor of your position, but even he had a special devotion to Mary).

.....I'm fairly sure that my side would win on that point.

 

God's teachings on piety that omit saintly prayer as irrelevant, and Roman Catholicism's that treat it as paramount, ARE contradictory.

Was that necessary? I just listed all of the 1-2nd century apostolic fathers as well as the Didache, the earliest liturgical and theological treatise outside of Scripture. I did not know that mere history was offensive to you.

You can believe whatever papist fantasies you want.

This is what you get for not reading your conversations carefully. i said that even if he didn't need it for himself, he should have advised it for his followers.

How could the fathers speak out against the error that did not exist yet? Luther and our formularies spoke out against the grievous and sinful Romanist practices. We follow Jesus Christ who did not teach his apostles the errors you are in favor of. We follow the faith of Moses and do not put up idols. You can worship the vicar at Rome all you wish.

 

So, I'm "grievous and sinful" (by virtue of my positions), a "[believer of] papist fantasies," a "Romanist," and a "[worshipper of] the vicar at Rome," according to you, @Spherelink.

If you decide that you want to return to a serious discussion, instead of further engaging in ridiculous polemics, let me know.

 

You ascribed dishonest motives to me ab initio, so please don't cast stones. Look, if the Roman Catholic church "wrote" the Bible then the rest of us are schismatics, the debate is over, and in your favor. When you retract statement like this then I will return to this discussion.

 

- @Spherelink

I didn't say that, though it's true that those who wrote it were in communion with St. Peter and his successors. I said: "you would have no Bible, if it weren't for Catholic history". The Church defined the Biblical canon.

 

The Church did not "define" the Biblical Canon. The Church recognized the Biblical Canon. The Bible is what it is because of God's inspiration, not because some Bishops got together and decided on a list of books. Now, obviously Bishops and other Church leaders had something to do with gathering the Scriptures together and discerning the real deal from the forgeries and pseudapigrapha, but the Scriptures were the Scriptures before that.

 

My point is that, if not for the Church, we would not know the canon.

 

i think that depends very much on how you define "Church". if you mean the Roman Catholic Church, when do you say it "defined the Biblical canon" for us?

 

Well, yeah, but that's only because if it was not for the Church continuing to exist, the Bible itself would be some irrelevant manuscripts from the 1st Century about a fringe religious movement. My point is that the Bible created the Church, not the other way around. When you realize that it is Scripture that created the Church then Scripture is supreme over the Church. Scripture is God speaking to us. We cannot be sure anything is God speaking to us outside of the authority of the Holy Scripture. Now, it took a while for the New Testament to be compiled as a single work, but that was done in recognition of the fact that these writings had been the foundation of the various Churches.

Tradition and Church Authority are good things, but only when rooted in the sure revelation of the Holy Scripture. Peter says that Scripture is a more sure word than his experience on the Mount of Transfiguration (2 Pt. 1:18-19). Do we have such assurance for Tradition or any minister of the Church? No. If Peter, the Apostle the Roman Catholic Church says the Pope succeeded, says that the Old Testament is more sure than his powerful personal experience, then how on earth are we supposed to trust the Pope 2,000 years later with infallibly interpreting that prophecy? It just does not even make sense.

 

If this is true which church recognised the correct Canon that was the Bible inspired by God? Protestants, Roman Catholoics Coptics and the Syrian church all have different God inspired Bibles. Can they all be correct?

 

Just because it was a church in communion with Peter and his successors doesn't meant it was the Roman Catholic Church. It was a church where Peter was in communion with other Patriarchs. It was a church that believed if could err. Nicea was convened NOT by Peters successor who'd be laughed at if he tried to, but by the Emperor, the civil magistrate. One of the 4th century canons teaches that if any bishop extends his jurisdiction onto another's territory (read, Rome), let him be excommunicated. It was an altogether different entity than the RC church which came about later.

 

Well, there is an Old Testament canon based on Hebrew texts and one based on the Septuagint (Greek). Protestants usually use the former, and Catholics are to use the latter.

Quotes from here: http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2013/08/when-god-spoke-greek

Edited for derogatory language about Scripture.

 

- @Elizabethan Churchman

This is just not true. The Bible came out of the Church. Christian communities were well-established in many areas by the time that the New Testament was completed, and the people that wrote the NT were the leaders of these communities.

 

You fail to interact with my point, and it is "just true." For one, this is about more than the New Testament but the Old as well, which the Apostles consider binding. The Bible was given to the Church by the Holy Spirit through the Apostles. It is not a product of the Church. To say that the Bible is a product of the Church is to say that the Prophets and the Apostles are "products of the Church," when they are the ones upon whom the Church is built (with Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone).

As St. Peter the Apostle tells us: Prophecy is a more sure word than his own personal sight. We have no such assurance with Tradition.

 

Liturgy and Baptismal creeds are older than some texts that make up what is now 'the New Testament' (never mind the fact they probably predate, in oral form, most of the NT in textual form).

Also to talk of 'the canon' and 'the bible' as if these are singular, lumpen objects is a mistake. As you probably know, Canon is taken from the greek word for a 'measuring rod or reed' which checks if things are in straight lines. Biblical texts are 'canonical' that is, they measure up, not that they are themselves the measure. The meaning of 'canon' was rather varied and its first usages in ecclesiastical circles with reference to Scriptures, probably just meant 'list' as in 'list of books it is permitted to read from during the liturgy', If anything was considered the binding 'rules' it was 'o kanwn ths pistews' or as we of the West tend to call it the 'regula fidei' The proto-creedal formulae for baptism.

People would carry round scraps of paper and small codices and scrolls, but the idea of the 27 books being gathered together in one place...Unusual, I suspect, in all but the wealthy and most prestigious churches at least into the second century- at least, no apostolic source extant shows knowledge of all 27. Canonical lists for the NT don't begin appearing until 330 - 350 in the historical record.

Might also be worth pointing out that the first person to draw up the 'Canon' in the way I think it's being bandied about here would be Marcion- I think you'll find all the texts he thinks licit are in the NT, so you could say his church was equally formed by 'the Bible'.

Not to mention that until the formulation in the 4th century, the idea of exclusive adherence to the 27 NT books was not observed in the whole church with many books such as Hermas, and 1 and 2 Clement, Barnabas being considered acceptable at various points whilst others such as 2 Peter, James, 2 and 3 John and the pastoral epistles coming under suspicion.

So I'd be interested to hear the historical case for these assertions about 'the' Bible making the Church. The thing is, to acknowledge a dialectic between written texts and the church (which I think is true,) is not the same as saying somehow the texts themselves 'fixed' or 'established' the structure, practice and worshiping life of that Church (which I think is unlikely.)

But you know, I thought we were talking about the dead?

Edited for disparaging views of Scripture.