saints and statues

Catherineanne · Jun 17, 2010

Dorothea said:
Wow, Catherine. Bravo. This explanation of Mary interceding and the differences in how we see the Bible are excellent.

Many thanks, D. I really appreciate the encouragement. :wave:

As far as I am concerned, I think the apostolics have far more in common with one another than we have differences. In the end it comes down to interpretation, if anything, but there is nothing in Orthodoxy or in Roman Catholicism which contradicts anything in my faith.

What does contradict my faith, however, is elevating the Bible to equal status with God, and giving it the authority which only belongs to him. Quite simply, it doesn't have this same authority, and the reason it doesn't is, ironically enough, that it does not say that it has.

As I think I have already said, Sola Scriptura is counter to Anglicanism's 39 articles. At first glance it looks as if they are saying the same as those who base their faith solely on Scripture, but SS goes much further than this. On the other hand, a lot of Orthodox and Roman practice that is frowned upon in lower churches does in fact follow Biblical examples.

What fun!

VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.

Click to expand...

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

Anglicans Online | The Thirty-Nine Articles

The doctrine of Sola Scriptura cannot be proven from Scripture. It is interpretation, and is in addition to the Gospel that we have been given. Therefore, it is not to be required of anyone at all, that it should be believed.

Beginning, though, with explicit scriptural evidence about authority itself, we find soon enough—this is obvious but is often ignored—that all authority does indeed belong to God. ‘In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth’. God says this, God says that, and it is done. Now if that is not authoritative, I don’t know what is. God calls Abraham; he speaks authoritatively. God exercises authority in great dynamic events (in Exodus, the Exile and Return). In the New Testament, we discover that authority is ultimately invested in Christ: ‘all authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth’. Then, perhaps to our surprise, authority is invested in the apostles: Paul wrote whole letters in order to make this point crystal clear (in a manner of speaking). This authority, we discover, has to do with the Holy Spirit. And the whole church is then, and thereby, given authority to work within God’s world as his accredited agent(s). From an exceedingly quick survey, we are forced to say: authority, according to the Bible itself, is vested in God himself, Father, Son and Spirit.

http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm

Yab Yum · Jun 17, 2010

Catherineanne said:
There is nothing in the Bible that says that we should use this as the basis for our faith. This is an extraBiblical interpretation of what Scripture is for.

Strangely enough, your pov is Islamic. A Moslem regards the Koran as the Word of God. Christians don't have a paper God, but a Living God. Which tells you all you need to know about both God and his saints. The Word of God in our faith is Christ himself.

Yab Yum · Jun 17, 2010

Ajax 777 said:
Elsewhere here on CF, I have actually read a fellow poster who uses the "it's not forbidden in Scripture, so it's acceptable and just" logic to justify smoking weed, insisting that is not a sin.

[13] “You shall not murder.
(Exodus 20:13 ESV)

[21] “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ [22] But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.
(Matthew 5:21-22 ESV)

Tradition interprets these Scriptures as indicating that use of drugs is a grave offense to the respect for the dignity and health of persons, like indulging in something to excess, such as speeding in an automobile.

Catherineanne · Jun 17, 2010

benedictaoo said:
Tradition is both the bible and the oral teachings passed down. There is not a dichotomy, either it's the bible or it's tradition. there is no disconnect. Oral and bible are one in the same which is Tradition. The oral word never contradicts the written word.

This is correct. Tradition and the Bible are two complementary faces of the same coin; neither can contradict the other.

Those who speak of Tradition as if it exists apart from Scripture, or of Scripture as if it exists apart from Tradition, really understand neither. Take Tradition away from Scripture, and Scripture ceases to have any meaning whatever; it becomes at best a random collection of old books.

Dorothea · Jun 17, 2010

Catherineanne said:
Many thanks, D. I really appreciate the encouragement.

As far as I am concerned, I think the apostolics have far more in common with one another than we have differences. In the end it comes down to interpretation, if anything, but there is nothing in Orthodoxy or in Roman Catholicism which contradicts anything in my faith.

What does contradict my faith, however, is elevating the Bible to equal status with God, and giving it the authority which only belongs to him. Quite simply, it doesn't have this same authority, and the reason it doesn't is, ironically enough, that it does not say that it has.

As I think I have already said, Sola Scriptura is counter to Anglicanism's 39 articles. At first glance it looks as if they are saying the same as those who base their faith solely on Scripture, but SS goes much further than this. On the other hand, a lot of Orthodox and Roman practice that is frowned upon in lower churches does in fact follow Biblical examples.

What fun!

Anglicans Online | The Thirty-Nine Articles

The doctrine of Sola Scriptura cannot be proven from Scripture. It is interpretation, and is in addition to the Gospel that we have been given. Therefore, it is not to be required of anyone at all, that it should be believed.

How Can The Bible Be Authoritative? by N.T. Wright

Very interesting info, Catherine. I've never read any of the Anglican Church's articles. Thanks for sharing. :wave:

boswd · Jun 17, 2010

Catherineanne said:
If God does not want us to celebrate the birth of the Lord, then why does Luke tell us quite so much about it?

As for the date, that is based on Scripture. St John the Baptist says, of Christ, 'He must increase, and I must decrease.' The Church, not knowing either the date of Christ's birth, nor that of John the Baptist, therefore chose a date which would reflect this particular Scripture.

So the Birth of John the Baptist is celebrated on June 24; the summer solstice, and the Birth of Christ on December 25; the winter solstice. Every year the heavens themselves then reflect and fulfill the prophecy of John the Baptist; after the birth of Christ the length of the days increases, and after the birth of John the length of the days decreases.

Anyone who thinks this is simply about Saturnalia, or paganism, really misses a huge amount of poetry and symbolism. Not celebrate the coming of the Lord, because the Bible does not say, 'Celebrate!'? Really?

QED

YEAH

Catherineanne · Jun 17, 2010

Dorothea said:
Very interesting info, Catherine. I've never read any of the Anglican Church's articles. Thanks for sharing.

You are most welcome. + Tom is very evangelical; far more than I am, but I think when discussing Sola Scriptura with its followers, it is best to use an evangelical pov rather than an ultra Catholic one. More chance of connecting with the right kind of language.

Articles which are more in line with my own theology are more likely to be found here, if you are interested in seeing them:

http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/91

Back to + Tom, however. He in effect says the Reformation did not go far enough; it simply replaced an infallible Pope with an infallible paper Pope. This imagery always makes me smile; I imagine the Bible on the balcony at St Peter's, blessing hoards of charismatics.

I hope that doesn't offend any Romans who might be passing. I have nothing against Roman Catholicism; it just happens not to be my tradition.

Yab Yum · Jun 17, 2010

Yes. Pope Bible.

New_Wineskin · Jun 17, 2010

Rhamiel said:
ok, we have talked about this many times before in many threads

but, so many good and spirit filled christians haaaate praying to saints and statues of saints

so I am going to try to be open minded about this

I was raised Catholic, so posting pics of people bowing to statues and yelling "Oh nooooooo it looks like pagan idolitry" is not going to work with me
it does not look like that to me, i grew up with that, it looks love filled, respectful, but no more pagan then when family members hug eachother or when a soldier salutes his officer, love respect

also, just posting bible verses about not making idols will not really work either
when people made idols, they thought they were gods, like the thing itself was a god, we do not do that, we just honor the saints

i dunno how this will go

When you write "so I am going to try to be open minded about this" , to what are you referring ? You and I know that it isn't being open minded to being convinced to discontinue the practice . I am not sure that the others realize that you didn't mean that .

I would think that you mean that you are attempting to be open minded concerning understanding why others would never do that . However , I think that you can understand that - having been in many discussions on the topic and being able to look from the outside in - and simply don't think that it applies to you .

So , to what are you open minded on this topic ?

bbbbbbb · Jun 17, 2010

Catherineanne said:
This is correct. Tradition and the Bible are two complementary faces of the same coin; neither can contradict the other.

Those who speak of Tradition as if it exists apart from Scripture, or of Scripture as if it exists apart from Tradition, really understand neither. Take Tradition away from Scripture, and Scripture ceases to have any meaning whatever; it becomes at best a random collection of old books.

Sadly, the Bible and Tradition frequently contradict each other. That is, unless you limit Tradition to only that which is contained within the Bible, in which case it ceases to be Tradition and becomes merely the Bible

For Tradition to exist as a separate entity from anything else (including the Bible) it must bear characteristics which differentiate it from that other entity. These characteristics, at best, may be innocuous and irrelevant or, at worst, contradictory.

For example, if one views Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity as a form of Tradition, one can say there is no contradiction - because it does address any scientific theories propounded in the Bible. However, if one takes Transcendtal Meditation as Tradition (which it proponents disclaim as having any contradiction with the Bible) most professing Christians will object citing significant contradictions.

Ajax 777 · Jun 18, 2010

benedictaoo said:
That's not true.... it's not correct. THIS IS NOT TRUE.

we don't think we can do what ever we want if the bible doesn't say DON'T do it.

We are talking about spiritual practices and cultures. Not Dogma.

If you have a practice and it doesn't go against what we do know is true, what is taught whether in the bible or orally, if it does not contradict scripture, why can't you do it?

if it contradicts, like smoking marijuana, you are not free. and that's a moral issue... not a religious practice. (all though I'm sure to some wackos it is).

But this issue of it not being in the bible... it is taught by the Church, ie Tradition and that is just as much God's word.

Tradition is both the bible and the oral teachings passed down. There is not a dichotomy, either it's the bible or it's tradition. there is no disconnect. Oral and bible are one in the same which is Tradition. The oral word never contradicts the written word.

Yab Yum said:
[13] You shall not murder.
(Exodus 20:13 ESV)

[21] You have heard that it was said to those of old, You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment. [22] But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, You fool! will be liable to the hell of fire.
(Matthew 5:21-22 ESV)

Tradition interprets these Scriptures as indicating that use of drugs is a grave offense to the respect for the dignity and health of persons, like indulging in something to excess, such as speeding in an automobile.

I do deeply appreciate the both of you taking the time
to post these responses. Sometimes I feel like,
with all the heretical things being promoted in the name
of "freedom," I am somehow some kind of Pharisee to these people...

But what the world calls "freedom" is quite often slavery.

Thanks for the well-thought replies, both of you.

Catherineanne · Jun 18, 2010

bbbbbbb said:
Sadly, the Bible and Tradition frequently contradict each other. That is, unless you limit Tradition to only that which is contained within the Bible, in which case it ceases to be Tradition and becomes merely the Bible

For Tradition to exist as a separate entity from anything else (including the Bible) it must bear characteristics which differentiate it from that other entity. These characteristics, at best, may be innocuous and irrelevant or, at worst, contradictory.

For example, if one views Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity as a form of Tradition, one can say there is no contradiction - because it does address any scientific theories propounded in the Bible. However, if one takes Transcendtal Meditation as Tradition (which it proponents disclaim as having any contradiction with the Bible) most professing Christians will object citing significant contradictions.

I didn't mean any old tradition, such as the tradition to roll cheeses down a hill on the first Thursday in March.

I meant the Traditions of the apostolic churches. Romans are told far too often that their practices derive from Tradition, rather than Scripture. There is no Tradition separate from Scripture; the two are always consonant.

Rhamiel · Jun 18, 2010

New_Wineskin said:
When you write "so I am going to try to be open minded about this" , to what are you referring ? You and I know that it isn't being open minded to being convinced to discontinue the practice . I am not sure that the others realize that you didn't mean that .

I would think that you mean that you are attempting to be open minded concerning understanding why others would never do that . However , I think that you can understand that - having been in many discussions on the topic and being able to look from the outside in - and simply don't think that it applies to you .

So , to what are you open minded on this topic ?

no
I ment I am trying to be open minded about the possibility of praying to saints is heretical in some way

really, i gotta say
have not read anything that has been convining

addo · Jun 18, 2010

Bowing down to someone shows you are his servant. Bowing down before someone is a universal sign of showing that you are a servant; in other words that you serve the one you're bowing down to. For example:

[FONT=&quot]2 Samuel 9:6 DRB[/FONT] (emphasis mine)
[FONT=&quot](6)[/FONT][FONT=&quot] And when Miphiboseth the son of Jonathan the son of Saul was come to David, he fell on his face and worshipped. And David said: Miphiboseth? And he answered: Behold thy servant.[/FONT]

Was bowing down in this instance OK? Yes, because Miphibosheth was truly David's servant.

[FONT=&quot]John 9:37-38 DRB[/FONT] (emphasis mine)
[FONT=&quot](37)[/FONT][FONT=&quot] And Jesus said to him: Thou hast both seen him; and it is he that talketh with thee.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](38)[/FONT][FONT=&quot] And he said: I believe, Lord. And falling down, he adored him.[/FONT]

Is bowing down in this instance OK as well? Yes, because that way the man showed that He was the servant of Jesus.

[FONT=&quot]John 13:1-5 DRB[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](1)[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Before the festival day of the pasch, Jesus knowing that his hour was come, that he should pass out of this world to the Father: having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them unto the end.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](2)[/FONT][FONT=&quot] And when supper was done (the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, to betray him),[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](3)[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Knowing that the Father had given him all things into his hands and that he came from God and goeth to God,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](4)[/FONT][FONT=&quot] He riseth from supper and layeth aside his garments and, having taken a towel, girded himself.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](5)[/FONT][FONT=&quot] After that, he putteth water into a basin and began to wash the feet of the disciples and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded.[/FONT]

As you see, even Jesus knelt and bowed down when He washed the apostles' feet, because it is written:

[FONT=&quot]Matthew 20:28 Darby[/FONT] (emphasis mine)
[FONT=&quot](28)[/FONT][FONT=&quot] as indeed the Son of man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.[/FONT]

I'll give you example from everyday life. When an artist ends his demonstration before the public, doesn't he bow down a bit before his public at the end? Have you ever wondered why? To show that he is the servant of the public, that he serves the public; and he serves it by entertaining them.

Another example would be that in some cultures, the host bows down before the guest. That would be a sign that he serves the guest while he stays with him by giving him a room, etc.

Now look at this picture considering all this:

Now imagine the man isn't blind but bowing down like that before Jesus. I couldn't find another image. Now look at this picture:

Don't you see anything wrong? In the first one, at least the man showed he was Jesus' servant. But in the second one they show they are servants of the statue. That's why God explicitly prohibits bowing down to images or statues; it's an universal sign of servantship.

[FONT=&quot]Exodus 20:4-5 KJV[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](4)[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](5)[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them...[/FONT]

I remember once I told a user in this forum to not respond to my post, because it was not my final arguments, just some thoughts. But yet (s)he did. I was very upset. How could anyone ignore such a straight sentence?

I believe God feels like this too. And I'm truly amazed by His patience. He so directly said not to bow down to made images and yet people disregard him so openly!

addo · Jun 18, 2010

Rhamiel said:
no
I ment I am trying to be open minded about the possibility of praying to saints is heretical in some way

really, i gotta say
have not read anything that has been convining

What is heretical is praying to dead saints.

Dark_Lite · Jun 18, 2010

addo said:
Bowing down to someone shows you are his servant. Bowing down before someone is a universal sign of showing that you are a servant; in other words that you serve the one you're bowing down to.

The entirety of Japanese culture would like to have a word with you. Based on that alone, the rest of your post is irrelevant. Also, didn't you read the opening post? Posting random pictures and then proclaiming it to be something evil based on your narrowed perspective was not included under the list of "acceptable arguments."

addo · Jun 18, 2010

Dark_Lite said:
The entirety of Japanese culture would like to have a word with you. Based on that alone, the rest of your post is irrelevant. Also, didn't you read the opening post? Posting random pictures and then proclaiming it to be something evil based on your narrowed perspective was not included under the list of "acceptable arguments."

If by "culture" you mean them bowing down to each other .... did I ever say that it was wrong? Even Christians are supposed to bow down to each other when they were supposed to wash each others' feet. Too bad this teaching made by Christ has been lost.

Dark_Lite · Jun 18, 2010

addo said:
If by "culture" you mean them bowing down to each other .... did I ever say that it was wrong? Even Christians are supposed to bow down to each other when they were supposed to wash each others' feet. Too bad this teaching made by Christ has been lost.

No, but bowing in Japanese culture doesn't mean you're a servant. It's a sign of respect. How about bowing to each other before a martial arts fight begins? How about bowing before a dance? None of these indicate servitude. You're attempting to stretch your argument way too far, and then proceeding with the usual "hey, it looks like this, so it must be wrong because it looks like this" without delving into the actual purpose behind the actions or the theology.

addo · Jun 18, 2010

Dark_Lite said:
No, but bowing in Japanese culture doesn't mean you're a servant. It's a sign of respect. You're attempting to stretch your argument way too far, and then proceeding with the usual "hey, it looks like this, so it must be wrong because it looks like this" without delving into the actual purpose behind the actions or the theology.

Calling someone Lord is quite respectful, isn't it? If you bow down before someone then he is the lord and you are the servant, whether permanently or temporarily.

[FONT=&quot]2 Samuel 9:6 DRB[/FONT] (emphasis mine)
[FONT=&quot](6)[/FONT][FONT=&quot] And when Miphiboseth the son of Jonathan the son of Saul was come to David, he fell on his face and worshipped. And David said: Miphiboseth? And he answered: Behold thy servant.
[/FONT]

Miphiboseth bowed down and said "Behold thy servant". That's because bowing down is a sign that you are a servant of what (or whom) you are bowing down to.

Dark_Lite · Jun 18, 2010

addo said:
Calling someone Lord is quite respectful, isn't it? If you bow down before someone then he is the lord and you are the servant, whether permanently or temporarily.

[FONT=&quot]2 Samuel 9:6 DRB[/FONT] (emphasis mine)
[FONT=&quot](6)[/FONT][FONT=&quot] And when Miphiboseth the son of Jonathan the son of Saul was come to David, he fell on his face and worshipped. And David said: Miphiboseth? And he answered: Behold thy servant.
[/FONT]

Miphiboseth bowed down and said "Behold thy servant". That's because bowing down is a sign that you are a servant of what (or whom) you are bowing down to.

Well considering no apostolic Christian calls a Saint "Lord," I guess we don't have a problem. Also, how in the world do you get bowing = calling someone Lord?

saints and statues

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Veteran

Well-Known Member

One of God's handmaidens

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Contributor

bbbbbbb

Guest

God is the Truth, not an opinion.

Well-Known Member

Member of the Round Table

Senior Member

Senior Member

Chewbacha

Senior Member

Chewbacha

Senior Member

Chewbacha

Similar threads