Praying To The Saints

[bbbbbbb]

Asking a dead person to pray for you is prayer and is the sin of idolotry.

It also comes extremely close to necromancy and is the sin which bought down King Saul in his efforts to contact Samuel through the witch of En-dor.

 

[yashualover]

Hi!




I don't follow sola scriptura. I can point to indicators in scripture for which tradition 'fills in the gaps.'

For example, we can see the martyrs bellow the altar of heaven in Revelations. They can both see what is happening on earth (namely that God has not avenged them yet) and are praying for the faithful. Revelations also talks about the prayers of the saints rising like incense before God. Assuming that includes the elders and martyrs in heaven, we might ask what they are praying for if not for the earth?

In addition, while you may limit the meaning of the cloud of witnesses surrounding us to exclude the possibility of communication, I don't. I think it can be seen as implying that, and given my church's tradition, that's how I take it. I understand if people from other traditions don't see it that way - but that's exactly what it is... competing traditions.

In addition, we do find much support in scripture for intercessionary prayers. This is rather simple - we are to pray for one another, and to ask one another for prayers.

So the tradition of my church puts two and two together. The departed faithful (the saints) surround us, and can see - by God's grace - what is happening. They can pray for us, and we are supposed to ask one another for prayers and to pray for one another. Given the power of the cross in overcoming death, it is a small leap (and one which the tradition universally supports) to asking the saints for intercession. That doesn't mean we worship them or that we think they fulfill the prayer on their own or anything like that. All we're doing is asking them to pray for us.

I might ask the reverse question when you say...



Do you have any scripture or evidence from the tradition of the Church to forbid me from talking to the saints and asking for their prayers? I can't think of anything in scripture which indicate that they CAN'T hear us either.

The above statement is foolish, it's like saying the bible does not tell us about smoking pot so it must be ok to use it.

Again, that seems a bit odd to me. So they can see us... sort of... but God won't let them hear us? They surround us, but don't interact with us in any way... so there's a barrier between parts of the Body of Christ (those living on earth and the faithful departed)? To me, this seems to divide Christ, something I'm unwilling to do. And if the saints can see us, as I agree they can, and surround us, as I agree they do, then it hardly seems like a stretch to say they can hear us. And if, by God's grace, they can hear us, then we can ask them for prayers. And if they are continually before God's throne as pictured in Revelations then they can pray for us.

Please show scripture showing us that praying to dead saints is allowed, I see the complete opposite in scripture.

Our YHWH is a Jealous God and does NOT share His glory with another. The first commandment is Exodus chapter one explains this very well.

I know that most protestants don't make those connections. But that doesn't make them invalid. To us, saying we ought NOT to pray to saints feels wierd and innovative - like someone trying to divide Christ. And we see these passages of scripture, confirmed by our tradition, as indicating that the communion of the faithful crosses over the grave. There is no separation in Christ - no barrier, no death. Death is overthrown; Christ God is risen.

Col 2:8 See to it that no one enslaves you through philosophy and empty deceit according to human tradition, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.

Anyhow - that's my two cents. I hope it clarifies.




The relative question is easy to answer. Yes. You can pray to a relative if you believe that person to have died in Christ. If not, then it probably wouldn't be that effective, but the Church won't forbid it. You can also pray FOR relatives who have departed. We don't speculate on what effect that prayer has, but offer our prayers, as always, as an expression of our love for one another.

I posted this elsewhere on this forum recently, but it just fits so well that I'll copy-paste it into here... I want to stress how much praying to the saints is about love and not about worship or getting stuff or anything petty. This goes towards answering your other question. Do you have to pray to a saint? Well... Orthodoxy doesn't normally like language of 'have to' or 'minimums.' Technically, no. If you pray only to God you would not be excommunicated. So you don't have to. But it would be in contrast to the faith as we have recieved it... Anyhow - here's what I posted on the other thread...



Praying to the saints is an expression of the Gospel in its fullness. It is, therefore, a part of the faith and a part of our Church. To not pray to a saint wouldn't get one excommunicated, but it wouldn't be the fullness of Orthodoxy, if that makes sense. Sorry for being a bit unclear there.

More lies




It's an entirely fair thought. A quick fyi: the EO believes that final judgment takes place after the 2nd coming, so the saints today are not in Heaven / the New Earth in the final sense of things. They are in an intermediate state we sometimes call "paradise" or the "bosom of Abraham" (since that's the title given to it in a parable in Luke).

So we agree that final judgment hasn't taken place for anyone yet, including the saints. And yes - there is a DANGER, a real one, in passing ANY judgment - positive or negative - on ANYONE. This is precisely why Orthodoxy rejects any sense of "assurance of salvation." We cannot even judge ourselves. God alone may judge.

There are occasions, though, and they are rare, when God reveals His judgment ahead of time. The process for the canonization of a saint is organic in the EO. We don't have a system for it. But generally, those who knew the individual and new the quality of their faith and Christian walk will start to venerate them as a saint (for that's all a saint is - a genuine Christian). Often, God's approval will be accompanied by miraculous signs, but not always. Some of these include the body weeping myrh or not decomposing (ask and I'll offer an explanation for why these often show up, but I'm already typing a long post). Often, the prayers asked for from a saint will be answered by God in miraculous ways, leading people to venerate the saint more and, thereby, confirming God's approval that, indeed, this person was a saint.

Why would God do that? Well, partly because God holds up examples for us in every generation which confirm some critical things:
1) The gospel is still alive and saving.
2) God is still active in the world.
3) It is possible to reach salvation in this culture.
4) For us to imitate Godly individuals who lived in similar cultures to our own.

Beyond that, why God reveals some saints and leaves others (the majority) hidden is quite a mystery. God's will is God's will. Our job as the Church isn't to question it, but to recognize the reality of it (namely that God does indicate the sainthood of some, and that prayers to the saints CAN be effective if God wills it - and that sometimes God will answer a prayer only through a saints PRECISELY to hold that individual up as an example and for the above 4 reasons). Once we recognize that, then the saint is called a saint, icons are painted, akathists sung, etc etc.

But that is why we don't just call everyone a saint. We DO believe in the sainthood of all believers. Those who endure to the end WILL BE SAVED and are, therefore, saints. Paul quite properly calls them all saints in his epistles.

We just want to exercise more caution. Judging others is God's business. If He doesn't reveal it to us, we should probably not pass judgment ourselves. Therefore, we also have a day set aside for the unknown saints, who, in our opinion, vastly outnumber the known ones.




I don't find support for that in scripture or tradition. The Bible does not, in itself, declare a list of books that you ought to call scripture. If you are silent where the Bible is silent, then where did you decide what books to include? You'd have to be relying on tradition in some way.

Also, it still takes an individual to interpret the Bible. It doesn't interpret itself, translate itself, select itself, etc etc. The assumptions, both historical and theological, which we bring to scripture inform how we interpret it. That's tradition.

So, as you can see above, I don't find prayers to the saints to be at all at odds with the gospel, scripture, or tradition. Quite the opposite, I find them to support it. You will, I'm guessing, disagree with me. But I hope to at least convince you that my position is reasonible. At that point, it isn't that the Bible is silent, or the Gospel contradicts it, or tradition doesn't support it. At that point, it will be just a difference of interpretation - a choice.



Romans 8:26-27 says nothing of scripture; it's talking about the Spirit teaching us to pray and praying through us. I'm really confused how that either a) contradicts prayers to the saints or b) demonstrates sola scriptura... If anyting, it seems to support the idea of praying as part of communion with God and one another that I quoted above...

Incidently, in the interest of keeping this thread on topic, I won't respond to any replies you make against my points on sola scriptura. I'll certainly read them, but I'll just agree to disagree within this thread. If you'd like to debate / discuss sola scriptura, I'd be happy to do so, but would prefer to head over to TAW or another appropriate place to do so. Hope that's ok!

In Christ,
Macarius

You have raised your rational above scripture, a very grevious sin.

 

[MamaZ]

There is a chasim with the dead in Christ and the living in Christ for death has not yet been swallowed up in victory.. This is yet to come..

 

[Macarius]

There is a chasim with the dead in Christ and the living in Christ for death has not yet been swallowed up in victory.. This is yet to come..

Is the Kingdom at hand or yet to come?

 

[Macarius]

I said:

Do you have any scripture or evidence from the tradition of the Church to forbid me from talking to the saints and asking for their prayers? I can't think of anything in scripture which indicate that they CAN'T hear us either.

You replied:

The above statement is foolish, it's like saying the bible does not tell us about smoking pot so it must be ok to use it.

This is hypocritical. It's ok for you to demand scripture of me, but when you FORBID me to do something - something which seems completely in line with the gospel - it isn't ok for me to demand scripture of you? That doesn't make any sense. I don't follow sola-scriptura, so I agree that if something isn't specifically forbidden in scripture it can still be wrong if the tradition teaches that it is wrong, but IF you are GOING to follow sola-scriptura then at LEAST be consistent. Show me a scripture forbidding me from praying to the saints.

Fulfill the same burden that you are trying to place on me. Otherwise, admit that the scriptures are SILENT on this issue, and that, therefore, it ISN'T a matter of us "ignoring" scripture and you guys following it - rather, you've "reasoned" that praying to saints is wrong and our "tradition" tells us its ok.

If you can't provide a scripture against it, then I can't be ignoring the scriptures when I pray to saints.

Please show scripture showing us that praying to dead saints is allowed, I see the complete opposite in scripture.

I did, in my prior post I walked through where we see praying to the saints. If you notice, I prefaced it by saying I DON'T follow sola scriptura. So yes, I understand that my explanation of scripture probably won't satisfy a follower of sola scriptura. I'm ok with that. Repeating the demand which I've already fulfilled gets us nowhere, though. You can say "I disagree with your perspective on scripture," but please don't ignore what I've posted and then ask me a question I've already spent time trying to answer.

You may see the complete opposite in scripture, but that's hardly going to convince me to abandon the practice. I think you misunderstand scripture and interpret it from an improper tradition which clouds your vision. I'm certain you'd say the same thing to me. We're going to end up agreeing to disagree, at best, on this issue. I just wanted to present the theology.

Our YHWH is a Jealous God and does NOT share His glory with another. The first commandment is Exodus chapter one explains this very well.

Do we glorify God by praising His works? The saints are GOD'S work, and our praying to them is NOT an act of worshipping them. It is an act of worshipping God. But hey, keep burning those straw men.

Additionally, scripture even says that we will be glorified with Christ - so God DOES share His glory with those who partake of the divine nature, as we are all called to do. He doesn't share WORSHIP, and we don't WORSHIP anyone but God. But He does share LOVE, and our prayers to saints - our talking to our brothers and sisters in Christ - is an expression of love. We don't worship them, but we do LOVE them and we do offer PRAISE to GOD'S work IN THEM.

Col 2:8 See to it that no one enslaves you through philosophy and empty deceit according to human tradition, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.

Which is precisely why the innovative theology of Protestants is rejected by Orthodoxy. Sola scriptura is an invention of men - invented in the 16th century. So is not venerating and praying to the saints.

You posted this in reply to my making a point that, to us, praying to the saints seems as natural a part of the Church's life and IS evident in scripture (as understood by Holy Tradition). Now, my assumption is that you posted this to imply "Scripture says tradition = bad." Sure, sometimes it does. BUT there are ALSO passages of scripture that call tradition good. You've seen enough threads on this forum to know that. If you want, I'll post them you.

Scripture does not universally condemn tradition - it talks about Holy Tradition, tradition we are to maintain and follow, in contrast to man-made tradition (which is bad, as this passage from Col. shows). You may disagree with my understanding of that tradition, and that's to be expected (we have different perspectives).

But this isn't a matter of "you = scripture" and "EO = tradition of men." That's a false dichotomy and an over simplification. Without a passage of scripture denying the praying to the saints, and without one specifically commanding it, neither side is relying "just on the scriptures." We're BOTH applying our respective TRADITIONAL understandings of prayer and its role in the Church to this question.

So it's a matter of "you = protestant tradition" and "EO = EO tradition."

We understand scripture differently, but we both use it. The only difference lies in the preconcieved theology we bring to the table when starting the act of interpreting scripture. To us, it is YOU who use empty philosophy and the traditions of men to refute what is, to US, part of the gospel. From your perspective, the opposite is true. Let us try to see one another's perspective, and then agree to disagree. Loving our neighbor (even our electronic neighbor) is more important than "winning."

More lies

Lies? So you don't think we're one in Christ, or called to love God and love our neighbor, or called to talk to our neighbor as part of getting to know them and loving them? You don't think God calls us into a community of believers?

What lies were you referring to? Please quote from what I wrote and explain to me the lie.

You have raised your rational above scripture, a very grevious sin.

No. This is all pretty clear to me as I read the scripture and am discipled in the tradition. It only looks complicated because I'm trying to explain it to someone outside that perspective. That requires words and reasoning. Otherwise we just get into a useless proof-text war.

Incidently, YOU have to interpret scripture (because you have to read it and decide what that which you are reading MEANS). So its a false dichotomy to say one person uses reason and the other uses scripture. You're using reason to interpret scripture within the tradition of Protestants. I'm using reason to interpret scripture, and constraining that within the tradition I've recieved (EO). You may disagree with my perspective, but we aren't doing radically different things.

In Christ,
Macarius

 

[Macarius]

It also comes extremely close to necromancy and is the sin which bought down King Saul in his efforts to contact Samuel through the witch of En-dor.

Only if we accept that those who have reposed in Christ are dead, and if we tried to use some kind of demonic or occult medium.

Seeing as how it is neither of those (they live in Christ, and we talk to them as both we and them are members of Christ), it really isn't necromancy.

I suppose you covered that by saying it was 'close' (without equating the two), but I just wanted to point out our general reply to the accusation of necromancy.

In Christ,
Macarius

 

[yashualover]

[edit] Sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone")

Main article: Sola scriptura
Sola scriptura is the teaching that the Bible is the only inspired and authoritative word of God, is the only source for Christian doctrine, and is accessible to all — that is, it is perspicuous and self-interpreting. That the Bible requires no interpretation outside of itself is an idea directly opposed to the teaching of the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Coptic, Anglo-Catholic, and Roman Catholic traditions, which teach that the Bible can be authentically interpreted only by Apostolic Tradition, or specifically the Roman Catholic Magisterium, (that is the teaching authority embodied in Bishops in union with the Pope). Sola scriptura is sometimes called the formal principle of the Reformation, since it is the source and norm of the material principle, sola fide.[citation needed]
The adjective (sola) and the noun (scriptura) are in the ablative case rather than the nominative case, not to indicate that the Bible stands alone apart from God but that it is the instrument of God by which He reveals himself for salvation through faith in Christ (solus Christus).[citation needed]

[edit] Sola fide ("by faith alone")



How can you disagree with the above?

 

[yashualover]

 

[MamaZ]

Is the Kingdom at hand or yet to come?

Is death swallowed up in victory?

 

[Trento]

[edit] Sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone")

Main article: Sola scriptura
Sola scriptura is the teaching that the Bible is the only inspired and authoritative word of God, is the only source for Christian doctrine, and is accessible to all — that is, it is perspicuous and self-interpreting. That the Bible requires no interpretation outside of itself is an idea directly opposed to the teaching of the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Coptic, Anglo-Catholic, and Roman Catholic traditions, which teach that the Bible can be authentically interpreted only by Apostolic Tradition, or specifically the Roman Catholic Magisterium, (that is the teaching authority embodied in Bishops in union with the Pope). Sola scriptura is sometimes called the formal principle of the Reformation, since it is the source and norm of the material principle, sola fide.[citation needed]
The adjective (sola) and the noun (scriptura) are in the ablative case rather than the nominative case, not to indicate that the Bible stands alone apart from God but that it is the instrument of God by which He reveals himself for salvation through faith in Christ (solus Christus).[citation needed]

[edit] Sola fide ("by faith alone")



How can you disagree with the above?

The Bible doesn’t contradict itself, so quoting verses will not contradict the Bible. But what does contradict the Bible is interpretation of the verses, or the manner in which you use one set of verses to prove your view, but forget a whole other set of verses which disprove a point.

2 Thess 2:15, no excuse for not obeying its clear words. There are other such passages showing us that Apostolic teaching was more than what was written in the Bible (1 Cor 11:34; Eph 3:3; 2 John 2:12; 2 Tim 2:2). Moreover, since the Bible doesn’t claim to be the only authority, then SS is simply presuming something you can’t prove.

God reveals all that is necessary, but He never said that everything He reveals will be in the Bible. The Bible itself says so (2 Thess 2:15).



Unless you can find a passage that says all God’s revelation was written down in the Bible, then what YOU believe is wrong. According to 2 Thess 2:15, there are two sources of divine revelation, oral and written. The oral is preserved in the historical documents of the Church, the written is preserved in Scripture.
The Bible is correct; individual interpretation of the Bible is wrong. If you are preaching wrong interpretations of the Bible, then you are a false prophet.

You can read and discuss the Bible all you want but that is quite different than making a dogmatic decision on what a given text of Scripture means. The prerogative of making the final decision on what a given text means is reserved only for the supreme authority God has put in place. A good example in Acts 1 and Acts 15 when Peter made the final decision on the interpretation of Scripture.
The Bible doesn’t teach that we follow the “traditions of man.” But it does say that we follow the tradition which carries divine revelation, 2 Thess 2:15:

It goes without saying that God is our ultimate authority. But God has manifested His authority in three channels: (1) the Church, (2) Scripture and (3) Tradition. They are equal in authority because God is directly involved in each one. This follows the biblical principle that two or three witnesses establish the truth. So the problem still stands: unless you can find a verse which says that Scripture is the only divine authority, then your preaching a false doctrine.

If the Bible is the only source of truth and unchangeable then why then why have they been change ? It can be shown quite easily from all the evidence in the early Church that it believed in baptismal regeneration (not the view of a symbolic baptism). There wasn't one leader of the original Church that dissented from that teaching. And that Church said that it created no doctrines of its own. It said that everything it believed was passed down to it by the Apostles, as 2 Thess 2:15 says, "whether by letter or word of mouth," which means that the first Christian are basing their belief in baptismal regeneration on what the Apostles taught. Yet we find 1600-2000 years later that many denomination decide to change that teaching, yet many claim the doctrines of the Church are unchangeable. Now, the only way out of this dilemma for them is to prove that what the early Church of the second century believed was diametrically opposed to what the Apostles taught in the first century. Can that be proved ?

 

[Macarius]

Is death swallowed up in victory?

I probably should have clarified this... death is swallowed up in victory, and yet death is YET to be swallowed up in victory. Just as Christ HAS overcome the world, and yet the world is yet to be FULLY overcome. The Kingdom of God is at hand, and yet the Kingdom is yet to come.

We are in the last days of the old creation, but by Christ's actions, the New Creation is at hand. In overcoming death, Christ became the firstborn of the dead. So that all are made alive in Christ through baptism into His death.

It seems like we just have different visions of what it means for death to be 'already but not yet overcome.'

To you, that means that the dead in Christ are with Christ but separated from the faithful on earth, and that the bodily resurrection and 2nd coming haven't occured yet.

To me, that means that the dead in Christ are with Christ, and therefore with His body on earth, but that the bodily resurrection and 2nd coming haven't occured yet.

I don't see any reason why I should reject the 2nd. We're both standing halfway between death being overcome and death not being overcome. Based on the other information I've presented, I think option two is completely reasonible, and, seeing as how it is the traditional (for me) way of understanding the Church, it is the one I accept.

I hope that clarifies. Your's is an entirely fair question. I was just trying to point out that, just like with the Kingdom, Christ has saved the world, and yet the world is BEING saved. We stand between the two comings of Christ. The work is finished, but it is being completed.

In Christ,
Macarius

 

[Macarius]

[edit] Sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone")

Main article: Sola scriptura
Sola scriptura is the teaching that the Bible is the only inspired and authoritative word of God, is the only source for Christian doctrine, and is accessible to all — that is, it is perspicuous and self-interpreting. That the Bible requires no interpretation outside of itself is an idea directly opposed to the teaching of the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Coptic, Anglo-Catholic, and Roman Catholic traditions, which teach that the Bible can be authentically interpreted only by Apostolic Tradition, or specifically the Roman Catholic Magisterium, (that is the teaching authority embodied in Bishops in union with the Pope). Sola scriptura is sometimes called the formal principle of the Reformation, since it is the source and norm of the material principle, sola fide.[citation needed]
The adjective (sola) and the noun (scriptura) are in the ablative case rather than the nominative case, not to indicate that the Bible stands alone apart from God but that it is the instrument of God by which He reveals himself for salvation through faith in Christ (solus Christus).[citation needed]

[edit] Sola fide ("by faith alone")



How can you disagree with the above?

In terms of providing a definition of sola scriptura, that seems accurate enough.

I don't agree with sola scriptura. However, that isn't the issue of this thread. In the interest of keeping it on topic, I'll refrain from posting what would inevitably become a LONG debate about sola scriptura.

If you'd like to debate it, I'm more than willing to, I'd just like to arrange a separate thread to do so. Let me know if that's what you'd like to do.

In Christ,
Macarius

 

[jckstraw72]

what is that article from? by listing Oriental Orthodox and Coptic separately it appears unlearned.

 

[yashualover]

The Bible doesn’t contradict itself, so quoting verses will not contradict the Bible. But what does contradict the Bible is interpretation of the verses, or the manner in which you use one set of verses to prove your view, but forget a whole other set of verses which disprove a point.

2 Thess 2:15, no excuse for not obeying its clear words. There are other such passages showing us that Apostolic teaching was more than what was written in the Bible (1 Cor 11:34; Eph 3:3; 2 John 2:12; 2 Tim 2:2). Moreover, since the Bible doesn’t claim to be the only authority, then SS is simply presuming something you can’t prove.

God reveals all that is necessary, but He never said that everything He reveals will be in the Bible. The Bible itself says so (2 Thess 2:15).



Unless you can find a passage that says all God’s revelation was written down in the Bible, then what YOU believe is wrong. According to 2 Thess 2:15, there are two sources of divine revelation, oral and written. The oral is preserved in the historical documents of the Church, the written is preserved in Scripture.
The Bible is correct; individual interpretation of the Bible is wrong. If you are preaching wrong interpretations of the Bible, then you are a false prophet.

You can read and discuss the Bible all you want but that is quite different than making a dogmatic decision on what a given text of Scripture means. The prerogative of making the final decision on what a given text means is reserved only for the supreme authority God has put in place. A good example in Acts 1 and Acts 15 when Peter made the final decision on the interpretation of Scripture.
The Bible doesn’t teach that we follow the “traditions of man.” But it does say that we follow the tradition which carries divine revelation, 2 Thess 2:15:

It goes without saying that God is our ultimate authority. But God has manifested His authority in three channels: (1) the Church, (2) Scripture and (3) Tradition. They are equal in authority because God is directly involved in each one. This follows the biblical principle that two or three witnesses establish the truth. So the problem still stands: unless you can find a verse which says that Scripture is the only divine authority, then your preaching a false doctrine.

If the Bible is the only source of truth and unchangeable then why then why have they been change ? It can be shown quite easily from all the evidence in the early Church that it believed in baptismal regeneration (not the view of a symbolic baptism). There wasn't one leader of the original Church that dissented from that teaching. And that Church said that it created no doctrines of its own. It said that everything it believed was passed down to it by the Apostles, as 2 Thess 2:15 says, "whether by letter or word of mouth," which means that the first Christian are basing their belief in baptismal regeneration on what the Apostles taught. Yet we find 1600-2000 years later that many denomination decide to change that teaching, yet many claim the doctrines of the Church are unchangeable. Now, the only way out of this dilemma for them is to prove that what the early Church of the second century believed was diametrically opposed to what the Apostles taught in the first century. Can that be proved ?

The word has been given to His children as a love letter to guide us into all truth, He has not left us in confusion, YHWH is not a God of confusion and would not leave His children in confusion. The canon of scripture is our ultimate and final conclusion, we are to measure everything against it.

 

[lionroar0]

The word has been given to His children as a love letter to guide us into all truth, He has not left us in confusion, YHWH is not a God of confusion and would not leave His children in confusion. The canon of scripture is our ultimate and final conclusion, we are to measure everything against it.

Where does Scripture say that it was left for His children to measure everything against it? And where does it say that everything must be stated in Scripture?


Peace

 

[sunlover1]

Where does Scripture say that it was left for His children to measure everything against it? And where does it say that everything must be stated in Scripture?
Peace

Hi there ! Nice to see you around.
Have you been reading the posts?
Dang, GT's getting pretty rowdy tonight,
must be a full moon or soemthing
Hope work is going good for ya.

I measure everything against Scripture, to the best of
my ability anyhow.
What would be a better measuring tool in your opinion?

sunlover

 

[yashualover]

Where does Scripture say that it was left for His children to measure everything against it? And where does it say that everything must be stated in Scripture?


Peace

http://www.the-highway.com/It_is_written.html

 

[lionroar0]

Hi there ! Nice to see you around.
Have you been reading the posts?
Dang, GT's getting pretty rowdy tonight,
must be a full moon or soemthing
Hope work is going good for ya.

I measure everything against Scripture, to the best of
my ability anyhow.
What would be a better measuring tool in your opinion?

sunlover

I'm starting to get tired of this time limit with CF. I responded to you but then CF logged me out before I hit the sumbit button.

Peace

 

[lionroar0]

http://www.the-highway.com/It_is_written.html

OTHER SOURCES OF AUTHORITY CONDEMNED​

Furthermore, in refuting the errors of the Sadducees, the Scripture records the Lord saying, "Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God" (Matthew 22:29). Christ Jesus continually castigated and rebuked the Pharisees because they made their tradition on a par with the Word of God. He condemned them because they were attempting to corrupt the very basis of truth by equating their traditions to the Word of God. So He declared to them in Mark 7:13 "[You are]making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such things do ye." Since Scripture alone is inspired, it alone is the ultimate authority and it alone is the final judge of Tradition.
The Word of the Lord says as a commandment in Proverbs 30:5,6 "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." God commands that we are not to add to His Word: this command shows emphatically that it is God's Word alone that is pure and uncontaminated.
Aligned with Proverbs, the Lord’s strong, clear declaration in Isaiah 8:20 is: "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." The truth is this: since God’s written word alone is inspired, it¾ and it alone¾ is the sole rule of faith. It cannot be otherwise.


The responce to this is in Scripture itself. Specially in the NT as there are parts parts of it that quote from documents that we today do not consider Scripture.

Peace

 

[lionroar0]

http://www.the-highway.com/It_is_written.html

Mr. Richard Bennet needs to study a bit more.

Since the NT quotes from documents that are not considered Scriptured and also are not found in Scripture.

His conclusion that Scriptures condems other sources of authority is a non sequitor since the NT writters quoted from what we consider non-Scriptural texts and also from no text at all but from Jewish tradition.

Peace