Salvation...and Mary!

[OzSpen]

Where in Scripture does it specifically say that the Saints in heaven are omniscient and omnipresent, so they would be able to hear our prayers?

Is prayer to saints/Mary biblical?

G,

I would agree with your point, but there is a presupposition that you and I support. That is the authority of Scripture over tradition. Many in the RCC and Orthodox tradition support the authority of Scripture and tradition.

Perhaps a point needs to be discussed on another thread (or it may have already happened): What causes tradition to be authoritative? How does one deal with the matter when Scripture and tradition clash?

I'm particularly thinking of praying to the dead or worship of Mary.

Do you think that there can be open and honest discussion between two groups of people (evangelicals vs RCC and Orthodox) when their presuppositions on authority are so diverse?

In Christ, Oz

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Only through the grace of God can we do anything:

Peter was able to heal Aeneas, raise Tabitha from the dead, and Paul blinding the false prophet Elymas.

Even Peter tells us in his second letter that, "For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust."

Paul tells us in Corinthians that, "And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit." Paul uses the same word, metamorphosis, as is used in the Transfiguration of Jesus. Paul is applying the transfiguration to us.

Blessed Augustine writes that "'For He hath given them power to become the sons of God.'[John 1:12] If we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods".

So through the graces of God, yes, the saints can hear our prayers and pray for us before the throne of God.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

G,

I would agree with your point, but there is a presupposition that you and I support. That is the authority of Scripture over tradition. Many in the RCC and Orthodox tradition support the authority of Scripture and tradition.

Perhaps a point needs to be discussed on another thread (or it may have already happened): What causes tradition to be authoritative? How does one deal with the matter when Scripture and tradition clash?

I'm particularly thinking of praying to the dead or worship of Mary.

Do you think that there can be open and honest discussion between two groups of people (evangelicals vs RCC and Orthodox) when their presuppositions on authority are so diverse?

In Christ, Oz

Thank you for your polite request. Just briefly, as a former Lutheran, I understand where you are coming from. However, it isnt Scripture AND Tradition but rather just Tradition for us. That being said, Tradition, or paradousis, is reflected by Paul in the 2nd letter to the Thessalonians: So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

For us Orthodox, Tradition makes up the whole of authority. But Tradition is made of several pieces:
- First and foremost, the Holy Scriptures. After hearing the Resurrection Gospel read on Sundays before the liturgy, we reverence the Book of the Gospel by kissing it.
- The liturgy (which means work of the people), and the entire liturgical life
- Church councils and their pronouncements such as the Nicene Creed
- The church fathers and their writings and not just the old dusty ones like St. Augustine, but recent saints such as St. Seraphim of Sarov (19th century)
- The canons of the church - how the faith was applied in daily life
- For Orthodox, icons, the faith in art

 

[OzSpen]

Thank you for your polite request. Just briefly, as a former Lutheran, I understand where you are coming from. However, it isnt Scripture AND Tradition but rather just Tradition for us. That being said, Tradition, or paradousis, is reflected by Paul in the 2nd letter to the Thessalonians: So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

For us Orthodox, Tradition makes up the whole of authority. But Tradition is made of several pieces:
- First and foremost, the Holy Scriptures. After hearing the Resurrection Gospel read on Sundays before the liturgy, we reverence the Book of the Gospel by kissing it.
- The liturgy (which means work of the people), and the entire liturgical life
- Church councils and their pronouncements such as the Nicene Creed
- The church fathers and their writings and not just the old dusty ones like St. Augustine, but recent saints such as St. Seraphim of Sarov (19th century)
- The canons of the church - how the faith was applied in daily life
- For Orthodox, icons, the faith in art

GO,

Thanks so much for your response and I trust that we can continue to have a cordial relationship even though there are differences in our approach to authority. This is my understanding of the Greek paradosis (tradition) that you cited from 2 Thess 3:15,

‘Traditions’ in 2 Thessalonians 2:15

This verse states, ‘So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter’ (ESV).

The NIV translates as, ‘So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings[1] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

The Greek word used here for ‘traditions’ is paradoseis (plural), from paradosis, which Arndt & Gingrich’s Greek lexicon gives as meaning ‘tradition, of teachings, commandments, narratives, et al’. It is used of the tradition that is preserved by the scribes and Pharisees (Mt 15:2; Mk 7:5). Paul uses it as a characteristic of the Colossian heresy and the ‘tradition of men’ in Col 2:8. The word refers to Christian teaching in 1 Clement 7:2 and of Paul’s teaching in 2 Thess 3:6. The plural is used of individual teachings in 1 Cor 11:2 (Arndt & Gingrich 1957:621).

So, the use of the term, ‘traditions’ in the Gospels and also by Paul in passages such as Gal 1:14 and Col 2:8 indicated Jewish and human ‘traditions’. In 2 Thess 2:15 and 3:6, along with 1 Cor 11:2, the word ‘traditions’ is the equivalent of gospel teachings or the truth. ‘Truth’ is the language used in 2 Thess 2:10, 12, 13, which is the context of 2 Thess 2:15.

So the word ‘traditions’ (plural, is used because of the various parts of gospel truth) and the nature of ‘tradition’ is that it is a word that indicates the transmission of truth from teacher to pupil.

I do not find the language of ‘tradition’ from the gospels and the epistles to be consistent with the RCC and Orthodox understanding of tradition being authoritative. R C H Lenski’s comment was that ‘Romanists have appropriated it and refer it to teachings handed down in the church and not recorded in the scriptures; but this late Romish use has nothing to do with Paul’s use’ (Lenski 1937/2001:443).

My examination of the Greek causes me to conclude in favour of Lenski’s interpretation. The traditions or teachings which the Thessalonians had received were from Paul, Silas and Timothy who had authority vested in them and they had passed on to this congregation. It is now recorded in the Scriptures of 1 and 2 Thessalonians.

Sincerely,
Oz

Works consulted
Arndt, W F & Gingrich, F W 1957. A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature.[2] Chicago: The University of Chicago Press (limited edition licensed to Zondervan Publishing House).

Lenski, R C H 1937/2001. Commentary on the New Testament: An interpretation of St Paul’s epistles to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus, and to Philemon. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.

Endnotes
[1] Footnote reads, ‘or traditions’.
[2] This is ‘a translation and adaptation of Walter Bauer’s Griechisch-Deutsches Wörtbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur’ (4th rev & augmented edn 1952) (Arndt & Gingrich 1957:iii).

 

[OzSpen]

Only through the grace of God can we do anything:

Peter was able to heal Aeneas, raise Tabitha from the dead, and Paul blinding the false prophet Elymas.

Even Peter tells us in his second letter that, "For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust."

Paul tells us in Corinthians that, "And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit." Paul uses the same word, metamorphosis, as is used in the Transfiguration of Jesus. Paul is applying the transfiguration to us.

Blessed Augustine writes that "'For He hath given them power to become the sons of God.'[John 1:12] If we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods".

So through the graces of God, yes, the saints can hear our prayers and pray for us before the throne of God.

GO,

I was troubled by your citation from Augustine where he stated, 'we have also been made gods'. I would like to encourage you to find this quote on the Internet and give a link to it. I was able to locate it in his exposition on Psalm 50, ‘Exposition on Psalm 50’,[1] where Augustine stated:

1 ….. The Word of God, if He is God, is truly the God of gods; but whether He be God the Gospel answers, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God [John 1:1]. And if all things were made by Himself, as He says in the sequel, then if any were made gods, by Himself were they made. For the one God was not made, and He is Himself alone truly God. But Himself the only God, Father and Son and Holy Ghost, is one God.

2. But then who are those gods, or where are they, of whom God is the true God? Another Psalm says, God has stood in the synagogue of gods, but in the midst He judges gods. As yet we know not whether perchance any gods be congregated in heaven, and in their congregation, for this is in the synagogue, God has stood to judge. See in the same Psalm those to whom he says, I have said, You are gods, and children of the Highest all; but you shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. It is evident then, that He has called men gods, that are deified of His Grace, not born of His Substance. For He does justify, who is just through His own self, and not of another; and He does deify who is God through Himself, not by the partaking of another. But He that justifies does Himself deify, in that by justifying He does make sons of God. For He has given them power to become the sons of God [John 1:12]. If we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods: but this is the effect of Grace adopting, not of nature generating. For the only Son of God, God, and one God with the Father, Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, was in the beginning the Word, and the Word with God, the Word God. The rest that are made gods, are made by His own Grace, are not born of His Substance, that they should be the same as He, but that by favour they should come to Him, and be fellow-heirs with Christ. For so great is the love in Him the Heir, that He has willed to have fellow-heirs. What covetous man would will this, to have fellow-heirs? But even one that is found so to will, will share with them the inheritance, the sharer having less himself, than if he had possessed alone: but the inheritance wherein we are fellow-heirs of Christ, is not lessened by multitude of possessors, nor is it made narrower by the number of fellow-heirs: but is as great for many as it is for few, as great for individuals as for all. See, says the Apostle, what love God has bestowed upon us, that we should be called, and be, the sons of God [1 John 3:1]. And in another place, Dearly beloved, we are the sons of God, and it does not yet appear what we shall be. We are therefore in hope, not yet in substance. But we know, he says, that when He shall have appeared, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is [1 John 3:2]. The Only Son is like Him by birth, we like by seeing. For we are not like in such sort as He, who is the same as He is by whom He was begotten: for we are like, not equal: He, because equal, is therefore like. We have heard who are the gods that being made are justified, because they are called the sons of God: and who are the gods that are not Gods, to whom the God of gods is terrible? For another Psalm says, He is terrible over all gods. And as if you should enquire, what gods? He says, For all the gods of the nations are devils. To the gods of the nations, to the devils, terrible: to the gods made by Himself, to sons, lovely. Furthermore, I find both of them confessing the Majesty of God, both the devils confessed Christ, and the faithful confessed Christ. You are Christ, the Son of the living God [Matthew 16:16], said Peter. We know who You are, You are the Son of God, said the devils. A like confession I hear, but like love I find not; nay even here love, there fear. To whom therefore He is lovely, the same are sons; to whom He is terrible, are not sons; to whom He is lovely, the same He has made gods; those to whom He is terrible He does prove not to be gods. For these are made gods, those are reputed gods; these Truth makes gods, those error does so account (emphasis added).

. :
There are some Scriptures that reinforce this idea like Psalm 82:6 and John 10:34-36, 'I said, you are gods, sons of the Most High'. What does this mean? What did Augustine promote when he said:

• 'if any were made gods';
• 'I have said, You are gods, and children of the Highest all; but you shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. It is evident then, that He has called men gods, that are deified of His Grace, not born of His Substance';
• 'these Truth makes gods'.

What is Augustine affirming and what do Psalm 82:6 and John 20:34-36 mean? Are all Christians heading towards godhood? My position is that this is an heretical view that is promoted by the Mormons?

What say the rest of you?

Oz

 

[sdowney717]

The Transfiguration:
After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.

So Jesus was talking to two prophets, one of which, Moses, whose death was recorded. So was Jesus engaged in trickery and necromancy?

'So Jesus was talking to two prophets, one of which, Moses, whose death was recorded.'
Jesus was the one who did this, NOT men, Jesus who is also God did this to show the disciples the truth of the coming resurrection and also about Himself His nature. You don't read where the disciples were talking to Moses and Elijah.

The secret things belong to the LORD our God, the things that are revealed belong to us. 'All souls are mine'. God does whatever He pleases.

You tell me anywhere in scripture where the dead intervene with God on behalf of the living. Saul raised up Samuel with the aid of witchcraft, the witch of Endor, and the witch knew Saul had tricked her when God actually did it as a judgement on Saul of Saul's rejection and coming death.

 

[WisdomTree]

How are you people confusing intercession with necromancy?

 

[Ignatius21]

Well, this thread has gone in several directions. Thankfully the most recent ones are thoughtful and respectful, which I don't think is allowed on internet forums. Please go back to screaming in each other's faces!

I'll try to respond to a couple of themes that have come up.

1. The article itself. The main point of the article wasn't a proof or defense of the practice of praying to Mary, so much as an explanation of why it is done, and the nuances of language that can cause confusion. His primary points really were that "save us" can mean much more than "deliver us from eternal damnation," and that "pray" can also mean "supplicate" or make a response. Ironically, one earlier poster had a visceral reaction in which he posted:

man made dogmatic consensus is hogwash...flee...run fast from such an abomination....run now and do not look back...I pray you!

Kinda proves the author's point about language and the variety of meanings it can have. Now, the author's use of the phrase "Mary flesh" and that we become it, was a little weird, I'll admit. I have never seen this phrase used before anywhere, so it certainly is not standard Orthodox terminology. I think he may have over-made his point. But I do still see the point he's making (and yes, I'm going beyond what he's written here, because I've read many of his articles over the years), namely, that in the Incarnation Christ assumed and healed all of humanity, thus all who are in Christ have a connection to one another. As all grow togther into the fullness of Christ, all grow together. Christ's flesh was taken from Mary...this, none will contest. This same flesh was crucified, buried, resurrected and raised up in glory. This same flesh, we receive into our own bodies in the Eucharistic meal (according to Orthodox/Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, and others'). So I don't think he's wrong in saying "We become Mary-flesh," although by extension, we become "XYZ-flesh" of every person who was in Mary's lineage going back to Adam and Eve. Which I suppose leads to another patristic use of typology, which is Mary as the "2nd Eve." Anyway, I'm not sure how helpful his phrasing really is. I wouldn't have used it myself.

The point is, when the Orthodox say "Most Holy Theotokos, Save Us!" in the Divine Liturgy, they don't mean "Mary, go to the Cross for us and raise us up and forgive our sins and defeat death for us so we can reign in heaven with you." They mean "Intercede for us that we be saved by Christ."

2. The question of "Why would you pray for saints' intercession when you can pray straight to God?" Given the Orthodox understanding that in Christ the dead are very much alive...one could say more alive than those still on earth...the question becomes the same as asking "Why would you ask for your pastor's intercession, or your congregation's, or a bunch of people on Christian Forums? You can go straight to God!" The answer in both cases is, "We don't logically explain why we ask others to intercede for us...we don't think God is somehow swayed by more people asking for the same thing...but we are commanded to pray with and for one another." The fundamental difference, then, isn't whether we should ask for the saints' intercession, whether those saints are sitting with us in church today, or depicted in icons. The question is one of "Can those who are with Christ, hear or be aware of our requests?" And on this, I would say the NT is decidedly silent. Revelation speaks of saints carrying the petitions to God, for those who are being persecuted on the earth. How did those saints come to know of the petitions? We don't know.

At the end of the day, I see that the overwhelming practice of the ancient Church, and which was (unless I'm very wrong!) uncontested until the Reformation, was to seek the intercession of the saints in the confidence that (a) they somehow were aware of this and (b) would carry those petitions to God and (c) this would benefit us in some way.

So in this framework, the more pertinent question would be, "Why not ask for the intercession of the saints?"

3. "It's not in the Bible!" would be the answer most often given to the question I just posed, "Why not?" And here is where I again, and again, and again loudly proclaim that everyone is part of a tradition that determines what they decide is, or is not, "Biblical." Some comments were made in this thread, in which presuppositions and traditions simply leap off the screen.

At least my tradition does its best to tsay within the confines of scripture. You find nowhere in scripture someone trying to pray to Mary. Sorry - but you can't make an argument for it based upon scriptural grounds and that for me is a problem.

I did read the article. I refuted it. With scripture.

So I would ask a question, why should I accept the tradition that "does its best to stay within the confines of scripture?" In other words, why should I accept the late medieval tradition of "sola scriptura"...based, as it is, in a rejection of the Papacy and the need to fill the authority vacuum with something else whose authority cannot be questioned...over the traditions that came before, even from the start? More pertinent: why should I accept the hermenutical tradition that came with SS, and after it, that makes assumptions and first principles like these:

IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly. (WCF I.IX)

when so many centuries that came before, had a vastly more broad approach to interpreting Scripture in historical, literal, allegorical and spiritual senses? They did not insist that there was but one sense of scripture.

Yes, we can find quotes from Fathers who seem to be laying out something very like Sola Scriptura. "Let the Scripture decide between us!" and "Unless I am convinced by Scripture," etc. But what did these guys believe? Did they then use their Bibles to thump away rank heresies like prayers to saints, or baptismal regeneration, or the Eucharist as a bloodless sacrifice? I think not. Something doesn't connect.

So at the end of the day, even simply cutting out a few Bible verses and putting them up on a screen, and considering a matter settled, carries with it a whole mountain of tradtions about what Scripture is, who can interpret it correctly, how it should be interpereted, how many senses it has, and all that. Every argument is about doctrine comes back down to an argument over traditions. There's simply no escaping it.

The sleight-of-hand trick, of lumping all my traditions together and calling it "What the Bible teaches," then telling all dissenters that they are disagreeing with God's Word and not with me...well, I did that myself for plenty of years. So I can see it very quickly when others use it.

4. The whole "praying to saints is necromancy" business. Frankly this is too absurd to warrant much discussion, but the basic issue from the Orthodox perspective is this: the Incarnation changed everything. Before, death was simply an unnatural and dismal and hopeless rending of body from spirit. "In the grave, who will praise you?" After, death is the "falling asleep" of the body, while the spirit is "with Christ." Clearly something has changed. In death, now, the dead-in-Christ do praise Christ as they await the resurrection of their bodies and the culmination of all things. The death, long feared before Christ as a separation from God, has already been experienced by the believer in baptism...and the resurrection unto a new life is already reality in the new life of the baptized, even though in time we all still await the fullness of this reality in the age to come.

We ask the "dead-in-Christ" (who really are alive in Christ!!!) to pray for us, because we have confidence in the resurrection. We pray for the dead-in-Christ, because we have confidence in the resurrection. The Incarnation has changed everything. What was impossible before (like the dead interceding for us with Christ) has become possible. And it is possible only because all things are done in Christ.

5. Someone asked whether praying to the saints is "indespensible." I would say that yes, it is, in the same sense as asking those around us to pray for us is indespensible. Can we pray directly to God? Of course we can. Do we strictly need others to pray for us also? I don't even know how to answer that. The best answer is YES, we NEED them to pray for us, even though we are not sure just why or how it all works.

That's the best I've got for now, I guess.

 

[sdowney717]

We ask the "dead-in-Christ" (who really are alive in Christ!!!) to pray for us, because we have confidence in the resurrection. We pray for the dead-in-Christ, because we have confidence in the resurrection. The Incarnation has changed everything. What was impossible before (like the dead interceding for us with Christ) has become possible. And it is possible only because all things are done in Christ.

5. Someone asked whether praying to the saints is "indespensible." I would say that yes, it is, in the same sense as asking those around us to pray for us is indespensible. Can we pray directly to God? Of course we can. Do we strictly need others to pray for us also? I don't even know how to answer that. The best answer is YES, we NEED them to pray for us, even though we are not sure just why or how it all works.

I kind of thought you folks also prayed for the dead who are in Christ.
Is that to get them out of purgatory? Another man made philosophy.

If praying to the saints was indispensable, why then is there nothing that God has said to support it? The opposite is true, that God has condemned this. But you're truly caught up in this deception (as are many) from Satan and that is impossible to escape unless God grants repentance. You use rational sounding arguments such as the communion of saints in heaven, but that is no proof of truth in how we are to relate to God and His Son and the word of God which DOES NOT include the traditions of the church contrary to scripture. Maybe your scriptures include something else?

 

[Tzaousios]

What is Augustine affirming and what do Psalm 82:6 and John 20:34-36 mean? Are all Christians heading towards godhood? My position is that this is an heretical view that is promoted by the Mormons?

No, the Orthodox doctrine of theosis is not what is promoted by Mormons. It is similar to the Protestant notion of sanctification, except in Orthodox terms it means that man becomes what God is, as exemplified by the incarnate Christ, by grace and not by nature.

Man participates in what are called God's "energies" and not his essence which is inaccessible. The distinction between energy and essence is a historical one which was made by Orthodox theologians to combat what was thought to be a confusion between the two made by Augustine and then Thomas Aquinas and the Scholastics.

In the end it follows the Scripture you cited, along with Peter's statement that Christians become "partakers of the divine nature," which is summed up in statements by Irenaeus and Athanasius about an exchange wrought by the Incarnation, i.e. God became what man is in order that man may become what God is.

 

[Ignatius21]

I kind of thought you folks also prayed for the dead who are in Christ.

Indeed we do. I said exactly that in the section of my post that you quoted here

We pray for the dead-in-Christ, because we have confidence in the resurrection.

Is that to get them out of purgatory?

Purgatory is a Roman Catholic dogma that developed in western, primarily scholastic theology as a very particular and highly philosophical system of understanding how the prayers of the saints on earth, can assist the sanctification of the saints who are with Christ, awaiting the resurrection. All the particulars of it are fairly unique to Roman Catholicism. The whole system of merits, indulgences, temporal and eternal debts, and the like, are not part of Orthodoxy. Not to say you won't find people today, and throughout history, whose views come close to that. For that matter, you'll find some theories of the afterlife that are downright strange...but none are dogmatic. The essence of the Orthodox view is that (a) those who die "in Christ" are present with Christ while their bodies await the resurrection, (b) progress toward theosis or what you might call "total sanctification and perfect union with God in Christ" continues after bodily death, and (c) the prayers of the saints on earth assist those who are in this state, though we do not (and cannot) answer how.

Another man made philosophy.

Actually, as regards the whole purgatorial system in Roman Catholicism, I'm inclined to agree with you I would describe it as one particular philosophical expression of how those who have experienced bodily death, but await the resurrection, can be assisted by prayers and can progress toward a total sanctification and purification in the presence of God. One that is heavily influenced by medieval scholasticism. It's based in categories that are rather foreign to Orthodoxy, and have been rejected by the East since the time of the "great schism." Protestants are far from the first to reject the unique dogmas of Roman Catholicism

If praying to the saints was indispensable, why then is there nothing that God has said to support it?

I'll answer this more fully in a second (in reply to your final question), but here I will expose a presupposition on your part--maybe right, maybe wrong--but an assumption. And that is, that God is unable to reveal his truth to his people outside of written documents. That the fact that the practice of praying for departed brethren, which has existed since pre-Christian times, and has continued unabated to this very day, apart from the Protestant Reformation...cannot be understood as God revealing to the Church, in the Church and through the Church, that this is in fact his will for the Church? Why can't we look at the prevailing, unbroken practice of the Christian Church down through the ages, and see that as confirmation that God has revealed his will in how we are to pray...as well as how we are to interpret His scriptures?

The opposite is true, that God has condemned this.

See my previous post. The condemnations you're referring to, were pagan practices of dinination and witchcraft, and sorcery, which the Church (yes, the same Church that prays to/for the dead-in-Christ) has also condemned from the beginning.

But you're truly caught up in this deception (as are many) from Satan and that is impossible to escape unless God grants repentance.

Ouch! How do you really feel?

You use rational sounding arguments

At least they sound rational. Rare for an Internet forum, no?

such as the communion of saints in heaven, but that is no proof of truth in how we are to relate to God and His Son and the word of God which DOES NOT include the traditions of the church contrary to scripture.

There is no "proof" of any doctrine that DOES NOT include the traditions of some church. You are no exception. Your canon of Scripture, your way of understanding it, your choice of which verses are "clear" and therefore can help to understand the "unclear," and the like...these are all presuppositions, and they are all traditions.

Anyone want to watch Fiddler on the Roof? There's a catchy song in there about this

I'm not claiming that you are bound by traditions and I'm not. I'm saying that you, I, and everyone else are all bound by traditions. So the question is, which traditions? Why should I accept your tradition of interpreting Scripture to say that praying to/for the dead is a deception of Satan, when the 15 centuries of Church tradition prior to yours, say otherwise?

Why accept the traditions of John Calvin or John MacArthur, over the traditions of John Cassian and John Chrysostom? These are the kinds of questions that must be asked, and answered.

Maybe your scriptures include something else?

Indeed, they do. They contain books that demonstrate the beliefs and practices of Jews prior to the coming of Christ. Beliefs that include the intercession of non-earthly beings (i.e. angels), and the necessity of prayer for the dead. Both of which were adopted by the earliest Christians (Jewish converts, then gentiles).

For instance, in the deuterocanonical book of Tobit, an archangel is the one who brings people's prayers to God:

11 “I will now declare the whole truth to you and will conceal nothing from you. Already I have declared it to you when I said, ‘It is good to conceal the secret of a king, but to reveal with due honor the works of God.’ 12 So now when you and Sarah prayed, it was I who brought and read the record of your prayer before the glory of the Lord, and likewise whenever you would bury the dead. 13 And that time when you did not hesitate to get up and leave your dinner to go and bury the dead, 14 I was sent to you to test you. And at the same time God sent me to heal you and Sarah your daughter-in-law. 15 I am Raphael, one of the seven angels who stand ready and enter before the glory of the Lord.”

In 2 Maccabees, the offering of prayers for the dead is inseparably tied to belief in the Resurrection. Note, not all Jews believed in the resurrection of the body. Jesus was specifically opposed by those who did not. It was those who did, who more readily heard his message.

39 On the next day, as had now become necessary, Judas and his men went to take up the bodies of the fallen and to bring them back to lie with their kindred in the sepulchres of their ancestors. 40 Then under the tunic of each one of the dead they found sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. And it became clear to all that this was the reason these men had fallen. 41 So they all blessed the ways of the Lord, the righteous judge, who reveals the things that are hidden; 42 and they turned to supplication, praying that the sin that had been committed might be wholly blotted out. The noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened as the result of the sin of those who had fallen. 43 He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection. 44 For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. 45 But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, so that they might be delivered from their sin.

Now, I'm fully aware that the above passage is frequently cited by RC apologists as evidence of Purgatory. I consider this dicey at best, because the unique blend of merits, punishments, etc. that make up the RC dogma of Purgatory, came centuries after this was written. Also, those in Judas' army were found to have committed idolatry, which is a "moral sin" in RC teaching, and thus, these men would never have been in Purgatory. That's another matter for another day, though.

What it does demonstrate, is that the Jews prior to Jesus' time--those who believed and preached the resurrection of the body--prayed for the dead because they believed in the resurrection. I think there's every reason to believe that this practice was accepted and continued by the first Jewish Christians, including those who wrote the New Testament, and those who carried and preached the apostolic message to the world. I can find no indication in any work on early Church history, that says that prayers for the dead were ever resisted as right and pious practice, until roughly the time of the Reformation.

So there you go. My tradition includes books in the Biblical canon that do explicitly teach that prayers for the dead are to be offered. My tradition includes scriptures that explicitly teach that intercessions are brought before God by other than still-living humans. My tradition recognizes that man is exalted above the angels because Christ became incarnate, and that those who have died in union with him are in fact closer to God than even the angels, because they share his humanity.

No deceptions of Satan here.

 

[Ignatius21]

No, the Orthodox doctrine of theosis is not what is promoted by Mormons. It is similar to the Protestant notion of sanctification, except in Orthodox terms it means that man becomes what God is, as exemplified by the incarnate Christ, by grace and not by nature.

Man participates in what are called God's "energies" and not his essence which is inaccessible. The distinction between energy and essence is a historical one which was made by Orthodox theologians to combat what was thought to be a confusion between the two made by Augustine and then Thomas Aquinas and the Scholastics.

In the end it follows the Scripture you cited, along with Peter's statement that Christians become "partakers of the divine nature," which is summed up in statements by Irenaeus and Athanasius about an exchange wrought by the Incarnation, i.e. God became what man is in order that man may become what God is.

What he said.

 

[Ignatius21]

G,



I would agree with your point, but there is a presupposition that you and I support. That is the authority of Scripture over tradition. Many in the RCC and Orthodox tradition support the authority of Scripture and tradition.

Would you consider this presupposition, just named, as being a part of your own tradition? If so (and personally, I would label it as such) then we don't have a choice of "scripture over tradition," but rather "Scripture interpreted according to your tradition, over someone else's tradition." Do you think that's a fair statement?

Perhaps a point needs to be discussed on another thread (or it may have already happened): What causes tradition to be authoritative? How does one deal with the matter when Scripture and tradition clash?

I think this has been at the root of every schism that's happened in the Church. There's no clean answer to it. And simply saying "It's authoritative when it agrees with the Bible" really doesn't resolve things. It just backs it up another level to "Agrees with which canon of the Bible, interpreted according to whose tradition."

I'm particularly thinking of praying to the dead or worship of Mary.

If you ever meet someone who worships Mary, smack him in the head with a copy of the works of St. John of Damascus' "In Defense of Icons" so they can properly learn the distinction between worship and adoration

Do you think that there can be open and honest discussion between two groups of people (evangelicals vs RCC and Orthodox) when their presuppositions on authority are so diverse?



In Christ, Oz

Yes, there can be open and honest discussion so long as it begins with open and honest acknowledgement of presuppositions and traditions. Only then will the impasses be seen clearly. We may not get past them, but we can at least understand them and find common ground where possible.



Thanks for your polite and charitable discussion on this! I really would like to know your thoughts on what I've asked.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

GO,

Thanks so much for your response and I trust that we can continue to have a cordial relationship even though there are differences in our approach to authority. This is my understanding of the Greek paradosis (tradition) that you cited from 2 Thess 3:15,

My examination of the Greek causes me to conclude in favour of Lenski’s interpretation. The traditions or teachings which the Thessalonians had received were from Paul, Silas and Timothy who had authority vested in them and they had passed on to this congregation. It is now recorded in the Scriptures of 1 and 2 Thessalonians.

Sincerely,
Oz

Afternoon Oz,
It took me a while to figure out that the thread was moved.

As for Lenski, this is what the St. John Chrysostom (Born 347, Died 407) said regarding the 2nd Thess passage:

"Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther. "

As for me, Ill take a 4th century patriarch over most modern commentators, even one as esteemed as Lenski (and as a former Lutheran, Lenski is quite revered )

Brian

 

[Ignatius21]

Well this thread sure died in a hurry. I seem to have that effect.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Since they moved it, it took me a while to find it.

 

[Ignatius21]

Since they moved it, it took me a while to find it.

Moved it where? It's still in soteriology when I view it. Why was it moved?

 

[GreekOrthodox]

It had been in Apologetics. That heavens they didnt put it in GT.

 

[Ignatius21]

It had been in Apologetics. That heavens they didnt put it in GT.

What on earth does this have to do with apologetics? And why is it still showing up under soteriology when I view the forum?

The whole point of the OP was to consider the breadth of salvation.

 

[Ignatius21]

Bump! For the heck of it