Origin of Praying To Saints

Status
Not open for further replies.

Lotar

Swift Eagle Justice
Feb 27, 2003
8,163
445
43
Southern California
✟19,644.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Albion said:
I agree. It's good when we can joke with each other and at ourselves. But scripture, I hope very much you agree, is not merely something manmade.

It is the word of God.

How can Scripture not have a basis in Scripture?

Scripture alone as the sole rule and norm of all doctrines has no basis in Scripture. Niether does the inherent individualism of the philosophy.

While reserving the right to disagree on the basic issue, I'd like to hear more about that religious order stuff. I haven't heard this before.

Look up the Waldenses. You can tack on another couple centuries next time someone says the idea is less than 500 years old. ;)


All right, but I was speaking of Scripture and you answered about Tradition.

Scripture is Tradition. You gave a falicious argument of: Scripture is inspired, therefore sola scriptura. All Tradition is inspired by God, it is not an unique attribute of Scripture.

In what sense do you think that to be so? Would you please elaborate, since this comes up all the time.

All of the authors are members of the Church. The Bible was authored by the Church in the same sense that the Creed was authored by the Church.

That much I agree with, but does that also mean that the parts it had use of--most of what we consider scripture today--had no meaning for the Church? I don't think that is a viable argument.

I wasn't making such an argument. The entire canon was completed by the end of the first century, so making the claim that the Church survived 60 years without a complete Bible is not entirely impressive anyways.

Even if one makes the case that the canon had not been assembled yet, it is only partially true. Bishops generally had a list that they had the laity follow, and there were also general liturgical canons.

I'd agree only that something having the form of a church could and would have existed in the absence of scripture, but not the Church as Christ established it. Not without its connection to God's revelation.

Scripture is only one of God's revelations to the Church, and He never ceases to guide and reveal Himself to the Church.

That puts distance between you and the Catholics, that seems sure. But of course, Protestants and Catholics would view the expression "instruction book" differently. For the Catholics it is a put-down, just a primer, a starter kit to getting the real story through the Popes, Magisterium, Councils, and so on. For Protestants, scripture is meant to be the ultimate in a teaching tool from God to Man, that is to say, something precious and not at all what some Catholics have in mind by the comment when downplaying the importance ofg scripture.

I believe the tactic of "putting down" Scripture is foolish. Scripture is worth more than the entire collection of Fathers and councils put together.

When I get home, I'll go through my links and show you a good article that explains some of the differences, though a large part of boils down to us using a mystical aproach, and Protestants and Catholics using the scientific method.

Here's a decent article: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/scripture_study.aspx
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Br. Max said:
OKAY this is not a discussion of Communion of saints - its a personal debate about sola scriptura. Have fun kids. I'll go look for people willing to discuss and learn.

Here's a thought...If YOU offer something, other people will have something to discuss. And if you know nothing, ask.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Lotar said:
Scripture alone as the sole rule and norm of all doctrines has no basis in Scripture.

I disagree with that. Scripture is pretty explicit in advising that this is all we need (to put it crudely). Meanwhile, there is no reason to believe in Tradition. Honestly, can you prove Tradition from Tradition? Can you give me any other than the usual fancy but unsubstantiated claims about "the Apostles' legacy" etc.? Don't use the Bible to do it, since you can't trust the Bible to be the answer to any religious question.

Lotar said:
Niether does the inherent individualism of the philosophy.

Many who don't understand Sola Scriptura seem to think that. But in your statement above which seems to be a kind of definition of Sola Scriptura as you see it, you didn't say anything about individualism. Why not?

Lotar said:
Look up the Waldenses.

The Waldensees are what you referred to as a RC religious order?

They'll be surprised to learn THAT'S what they are !!;)



Lotar said:
Scripture is Tradition.

I think it is revelation. How do you come up with the idea that it is God's word but also just tradition?

Lotar said:
You gave a falicious argument of: Scripture is inspired, therefore sola scriptura. All Tradition is inspired by God, it is not an unique attribute of Scripture.

We have no way of knowing if Tradition is inspired of God, though. Or even what constitutes Tradition. In the case of the Bible, we have it an its just a matter of whether we believe it (Sola Scriptura) or not.

Lotar said:
The Bible was authored by the Church in the same sense that the Creed was authored by the Church.

Certainly not. The Creed was authored by officials of the institutional church.

The writers of the NT, as we all know, were not acting upon any directive from the institution.

Lotar said:
Scripture is only one of God's revelations to the Church, and He never ceases to guide and reveal Himself to the Church.

Sounds nice to say, but how do you know that to be true?


Lotar said:
I believe the tactic of "putting down" Scripture is foolish. Scripture is worth more than the entire collection of Fathers and councils put together.

I'm glad we have that in common.

Lotar said:
When I get home, I'll go through my links and show you a good article that explains some of the differences, though a large part of boils down to us using a mystical aproach, and Protestants and Catholics using the scientific method.

Superimposing mysticism upon revelation seems to have been the source of much heresy in the past, don't you agree?
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
livingproofGM said:
Where in the Bible does it say it's all we need?

The question has been asked before, and I have posted a list of relevant verses, but I'd suggest that you start with John 20:30-31.

Then for your part, tell me where in the Bible does it say that what God chose to reveal to us in the Bible will be supplemented or updated with additional revelation adding to it later on.
 
Upvote 0

Lotar

Swift Eagle Justice
Feb 27, 2003
8,163
445
43
Southern California
✟19,644.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Albion said:
I disagree with that. Scripture is pretty explicit in advising that this is all we need (to put it crudely). Meanwhile, there is no reason to believe in Tradition. Honestly, can you prove Tradition from Tradition? Can you give me any other than the usual fancy but unsubstantiated claims about "the Apostles' legacy" etc.? Don't use the Bible to do it, since you can't trust the Bible to be the answer to any religious question.

Really? I would like to see some proof of this, and not just "all Scripture is good" type quotes. Provide me something that states in a "pretty explicit" way that all we need is Scripture.

You can prove Tradition from Tradition, but what sort of proof is a self verifying source.

I use the Bible to answer questions all the time. Look at some of the Scripture quoted by Max and the couple verses quoted by me (which was not meant as a response to you). Elsewhere we find other quotes dealing with the Church.

The Truth is found in the Church, not the solely the Bible, nor the near limitless volumes of the Fathers.


Many who don't understand Sola Scriptura seem to think that. But in your statement above which seems to be a kind of definition of Sola Scriptura as you see it, you didn't say anything about individualism. Why not?

LOL. I know very well what Sola Scriptura is, both the classical view, and the more recent variaty. Your classical view may give a place to "the Church" and "tradition" as you understand it, but the over-arching authority is the individual's understanding of Scripture.

The Waldensees are what you referred to as a RC religious order?

They'll be surprised to learn THAT'S what they are !!;)

They were. They did have papal approval to begin with, ya know.

Scripture is Tradition. You gave a falicious argument of: Scripture is inspired, therefore sola scriptura. All Tradition is inspired by God, it is not an unique attribute of Scripture.



All of the authors are members of the Church. The Bible was authored by the Church in the same sense that the Creed was authored by the Church.



I wasn't making such an argument. The entire canon was completed by the end of the first century, so making the claim that the Church survived 60 years without a complete Bible is not entirely impressive anyways.

Even if one makes the case that the canon had not been assembled yet, it is only partially true. Bishops generally had a list that they had the laity follow, and there were also general liturgical canons.



Scripture is only one of God's revelations to the Church, and He never ceases to guide and reveal Himself to the Church.



I believe the tactic of "putting down" Scripture is foolish. Scripture is worth more than the entire collection of Fathers and councils put together.

When I get home, I'll go through my links and show you a good article that explains some of the differences, though a large part of boils down to us using a mystical aproach, and Protestants and Catholics using the scientific method.

Here's a decent article: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/scripture_study.aspx

I total agree with that. :thumbsup:

:p
 
Upvote 0

Lotar

Swift Eagle Justice
Feb 27, 2003
8,163
445
43
Southern California
✟19,644.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Albion said:
I think it is revelation. How do you come up with the idea that it is God's word but also just tradition?

Tradition is revelation.

We have no way of knowing if Tradition is inspired of God, though. Or even what constitutes Tradition. In the case of the Bible, we have it an its just a matter of whether we believe it (Sola Scriptura) or not.

Truly? How do you know what constitutes the Bible and, for that mater, how do we know Scripture is inspired? You seem to be backing yourself in a corner here.

We have the Church and its just a matter of whether we believe it or not.

Certainly not. The Creed was authored by officials of the institutional church.

The writers of the NT, as we all know, were not acting upon any directive from the institution.

Really? Would you say so?

Were Sts. Paul, John, et al. just writing for their personal edification?

Sounds nice to say, but how do you know that to be true?

It's in Scripture.



Superimposing mysticism upon revelation seems to have been the source of much heresy in the past, don't you agree?

Intellectualism has always been a much greater source.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Lotar said:
Really? I would like to see some proof of this, and not just "all Scripture is good" type quotes. Provide me something that states in a "pretty explicit" way that all we need is Scripture.

Already answered.

Lotar said:
You can prove Tradition from Tradition

Then go ahead. That's what I asked.

Lotar said:
I use the Bible to answer questions all the time. Look at some of the Scripture quoted by Max and the couple verses quoted by me (which was not meant as a response to you). Elsewhere we find other quotes dealing with the Church.

But since the Bible is not sufficient to have us know the truth, as you feel to be the case, how can you prove anything from it? That's like saying that what's in the the Book of Mormon is not entirely true but then quoting from it to prove that something else is.

Lotar said:
The Truth is found in the Church

Isn't that just a statement of faith instead of fact?

Lotar said:
LOL. I know very well what Sola Scriptura is, both the classical view,

Then you'll forgive me for not coming right out and saying that you made a mess of trying to explain it. Maybe I should just have identified the errors in what you wrote.

Incidentally, I consider only the historical view. Those whom you may be thinking of who have tried to give it a new twist are merely attempting to lift the term for their own purposes.

Lotar said:
Your classical view may give a place to "the Church" and "tradition" as you understand it, but the over-arching authority is the individual's understanding of Scripture.

That's not Sola Scriptura. Sola=Alone. Scriptura=Scripture.


Lotar said:
They were (Waldensees). They did have papal approval to begin with, ya know.

Very well; Sola Scriptura is neither affirmed or disproved because of the Waldensians. I just did not pick up on the reference when you described an unnamed RC religious order, and I doubt that most people would use that way of identifying the Waldensians.
 
Upvote 0

livingproofGM

know thyself
Aug 3, 2005
2,415
57
36
Modesto, CA
Visit site
✟2,860.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
But since the Bible is not sufficient to have us know the truth, as you feel to be the case, how can you prove anything from it?
That's not what is being said. The true "rule of faith"—as expressed in the Bible itself—is Scripture plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly.


This oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching that came to them later. Jesus told his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me" (Luke 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given the authority to teach by Christ; the Church would be his representative. He commissioned them, saying, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19).
http://www.catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp
 
Upvote 0

Lotar

Swift Eagle Justice
Feb 27, 2003
8,163
445
43
Southern California
✟19,644.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Albion said:
Already answered.

Not really.

Then go ahead. That's what I asked.

All these things which we have spoken, beloved, are founded, as you very well know, upon the inspired Scriptures, according to the interpretation and the sound teaching and explanation of our wise and holy theologians [the Fathers of the Church]. For we may not rely upon our own interpretation and understand and interpret any of the words of the inspired Scripture except in accord with the theologizing Fathers who have been approved by the Holy Synods, [inspired] by the Holy Spirit for a pious purpose, lest our thought, like that of Proteus move around here and there, deviating from the correct evangelical teaching, from true wisdom and from prudence. But someone will say, how can these things be corrected? In this way: with the help of God.

Let no one undertake or think anything contrary to the decisions of the Holy Apostles and the Holy Synods. He who uprightly keeps this principle will be a partner with us in our rejoicing, a member of our community and one who holds the same faith. But what communion would one have with us, who rejects the aforementioned canons and opposes the Apostles and shamelessly turns himself against the Holy Apostles? What part could he have with us? Somewhere one of the teachers [of the Church] says to those who strive to be pious: "One who speaks contrary to the things which have been decided—even though he is trustworthy [cf. l Cor 4:2; 9:1], lives as a virgin, does wonders, and prophesies—is a wolf in sheep's clothing, who causes the ruin of the sheep." Another teacher says: "It shakes loose something that seemed good to the God-bearing Fathers, that cannot be called administration, but violation and betrayal of the dogma." Still another teacher [Saint Basil] says:


One who has the judgment of Christ before his eyes, who has seen the great danger that threatens those who dare to subtract from or add to those things which have been handed down by the Spirit, must not be ambitious to innovate, but must content himself with those things which have been proclaimed by the saints. [Against Eunomius 2, PG 29.573-652]



Therefore, since so many and such important of our theologizing Fathers forbid thinking otherwise, there is only one correction: conform to the Holy Synod and follow the canons of the Apostles and, thus, follow Christ in all things.


-Patriarch Jeremiah II in response to the Lutheran theologians


But since the Bible is not sufficient to have us know the truth, as you feel to be the case, how can you prove anything from it? That's like saying that what's in the the Book of Mormon is not entirely true but then quoting from it to prove that something else is.

When did I say that Scriptures are not entirely true? There is nothing false in them. You set up a strawman.

You continually insinuate that I devalue Scripture because I say it is part of the Holy Tradition of the Church. This is false, since the fault is that you devalue the Tradition of the Church.

The fault is not that Scripture is deficient, nor is it that the rest of Tradition is deficient, the fault is that we are deficient, and while you remain outside the Church, you will not know the Truth.

Isn't that just a statement of faith instead of fact?

Both.

Then you'll forgive me for not coming right out and saying that you made a mess of trying to explain it. Maybe I should just have identified the errors in what you wrote.

Incidentally, I consider only the historical view. Those whom you may be thinking of who have tried to give it a new twist are merely attempting to lift the term for their own purposes.

You are forgiven. You should come out and explain my errors, perhaps I did not correctly understand Luther, Chemnitz, Melanchthon, Sproul, etc. when I read them.

That's not Sola Scriptura. Sola=Alone. Scriptura=Scripture.

Really?

Let me put it this way:
Scripture - Individual - Church

Wouldn't you say that is how it goes?


Very well; Sola Scriptura is neither affirmed or disproved because of the Waldensians. I just did not pick up on the reference when you described an unnamed RC religious order, and I doubt that most people would use that way of identifying the Waldensians.

That wasn't my point, my point was that the doctrine is an innovation, as all heresy is.
 
Upvote 0

livingproofGM

know thyself
Aug 3, 2005
2,415
57
36
Modesto, CA
Visit site
✟2,860.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Julie said:
Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

:amen:
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Lotar

Swift Eagle Justice
Feb 27, 2003
8,163
445
43
Southern California
✟19,644.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

Acts 8:30-31
And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest?
Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

 
Upvote 0

Julie

ONLY JESUS CHRIST SAVES
Apr 22, 2002
1,086
5
42
Visit site
✟9,327.00
Faith
Christian
Acts 8:35
Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

Romans 10:14
How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Lotar

Swift Eagle Justice
Feb 27, 2003
8,163
445
43
Southern California
✟19,644.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Julie said:
Acts 8:35
Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

Romans 10:14
How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

Take a hard look a Romans 10:14 again, and see what it is saying. :)
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.