Sola Scriptura?

[Albion]

The Councils themselves are reflected in Scripture.

Meaning what, exactly?

 

[All4Christ]

That's a reasonable point. And you're saying the church does not expect that all members will consider praying to the saints to be a correct, God-pleasing, practice?

I have a little difficulty accepting that this is the case. For one thing, if the church approves of it and practices it...what does this say about the attitude of the disbelieving member towards the authority of the church (which point has been explained to me here more that once)?

Anastasia said it isn't required for salvation. Salvation isn't limited to the Orthodox Church, so I'd consider that to be a different subject (what is required to become Orthodox / join a church), albeit related.

 

[All4Christ]

My point there was that we've been talking about Sola Scripture vs. what the 'catholic' churches such as the RC and EO teach instead. It's not an issue of HOW they arrived at what the Bible consists of. It's an issue of whether the Bible's contents are sufficient and supreme or not.


For one thing, we don't trust them in that way. The two councils that codified the Bible books are not considered to be Ecumenical Councils. In addition, which "other matters" are you referring to, and what is the method by which the 'leading' supposedly takes place? I would not think it reasonable simply to say that whatever the church leaders decree must be on the same level as the word of God, whether or not they claim that the Holy Spirit led them to the doctrine in question (which they always do).

Understood regarding the ecumenical councils and the canon of the New Testament.

That said - once again, there are family matters that prevent me from answering fully at the moment...this time it is my husband's birthday celebration I will write more later.

I 'hear' people on CF all the time saying that God spoke to them, spoke to them in a dream, or spoke to them while they were praying...and they are absolutely convinced that this is all they need to decide some very important theological questions. I'm a skeptic when it comes to that sort of thing.

Agreed 100%.

 

[FenderTL5]

This is a tricky area. My church of course has canons, too, and a constitution and by laws. But most of this doesn't break new ground so far as dogmas are concerned. Most of it deals with procedures that are simply a matter of keeping good order in the church. As your source indicates (I think), historical information such as The Didache is an important tool, but that doesn't conflict with Sola Scriptura, even if it did happen to deal with a doctrinal point, such as the administration of baptism, so long as it's an elaboration of or a clarification of what the Bible says.

I agree.
and yes the The Didache is a reference.
There hasn't been a council that was recognized as Ecumenical since 787.



.

 

[PeaceB]

My point there was that we've been talking about Sola Scripture vs. what the 'catholic' churches such as the RC and EO teach instead. It's not an issue of HOW they arrived at what the Bible consists of. It's an issue of whether the Bible's contents are sufficient and supreme or not.

Does your church teach that the 27 books of the New Testament are the inspired word of God? If you hold this belief, then it comes from outside of Scripture itself. You are relying on something outside of Scripture for one of your core beliefs, just as non-Protestants rely (in-part) on things outside Scripture for some of their core beliefs. When you do it, it is perfectly well and fine. When others do it, we are violating the all sacred (and non-biblical) principle of Sola Scriptura. You appear to have effectively conceded the argument.

For one thing, we don't trust them in that way. The two councils that codified the Bible books are not considered to be Ecumenical Councils. In addition, which "other matters" are you referring to, and what is the method by which the 'leading' supposedly takes place? I would not think it reasonable simply to say that whatever the church leaders decree must be on the same level as the word of God, whether or not they claim that the Holy Spirit led them to the doctrine in question (which they always do).

They are Ecumenical to you, because that is the source on which you rely for your belief that the 27 books of the New Testament are the inspired word of God. You just refuse to admit it. Who else told you? It certainly wasn't Martin Luther. It certainly is not the Scriptures themselves.

What do you base your belief on? Did the Holy Spirit personally reveal it to you? Did St. Michael the archangel reveal it to you in a dream?

Sorry, but until you answer these questions, your whole theory seems to be on very shaky ground.

I 'hear' people on CF all the time saying that God spoke to them, spoke to them in a dream, or spoke to them while they were praying...and they are absolutely convinced that this is all they need to decide some very important theological questions. I'm a skeptic when it comes to that sort of thing.

Well then. Tell us how you know that the 27 books of the New Testament are the inspired word of God, and that other books are not, if you have a problem with people saying that "God spoke to them".

 

[dzheremi]

Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior prays in the gospel according to St. John: "And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent." (17:3)

In light of this, it does not seem unreasonable at all to say that 98% or whatever percent of the scriptures could be gone and it would still be sufficient to determine what is necessary for salvation, because Christ our God says it right there in one verse: that we may know the Father, the only true God, and Jesus Christ Whom He has sent.

But of course without the rest we would be greatly impoverished in our quest to know God (it is still entirely possible, of course, just more difficult; many a person has thought they were having a "road to Damascus" moment or a modern-day Pentecost, but were really just deluded). Our master the apostle St. Paul writes in his second epistle to his disciple Timothy that "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." (3:16-17)

This is interpreted by our father St. John Chrysostom in his ninth homily on 2 Timothy in the following way:

Having offered much exhortation and consolation from other sources, he adds that which is more perfect, derived from the Scriptures; and he is reasonably full in offering consolation, because he has a great and sad thing to say. For if Elisha, ho was with his master to his last breath, when he saw him departing as it were in death, rent his garments for grief, what think you must this disciple suffer, so loving and so beloved, upon hearing that his master was about to die, and that he could not enjoy his company when he was near his death, which is above all things apt to be distressing? For we are less grateful for the past time, when we have been deprived of the more recent intercourse of those who are departed. For this reason when he had previously offered much consolation, he then discourses concerning his own death: and this in no ordinary way, but in words adapted to comfort him and fill him with joy; so as to have it considered as a sacrifice rather than a death; a migration, as in fact it was, and a removal to a better state. "For I am now ready to be offered up", he says. For this reason he writes: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." All what Scripture? All that sacred writing, he means, of which I was speaking. This is said of what he was discoursing of; about which he said, "From a child you have known the holy Scriptures." All such, then, "is given by inspiration of God"; therefore, he means, do not doubt; and it is "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

"For doctrine." For thence we shall know, whether we ought to learn or to be ignorant of anything. And thence we may disprove what is false, thence we may be corrected and brought to a right mind, may be comforted and consoled, and if anything is deficient, we may have it added to us.

"That the man of God may be perfect." For this is the exhortation of the Scripture given, that the man of God may be rendered perfect by it; without this therefore he cannot be perfect. You have the Scriptures, he says, in place of me. If you would learn anything, you may learn it from them. And if he thus wrote to Timothy, who was filled with the Spirit, how much more to us!

+++

From this is reasonable to draw the conclusion that the early Church held the scriptures in extremely high esteem, to put it mildly, and yet their idea of what it means that they are relied upon might have been different than more modern notions of 'sufficiency'. St. John's good commentary puts the exhortation of the scriptures given by St. Paul in the context of his coming martyrdom, so that he may remind his disciple that the scriptures are there to guide him even as Paul himself is offered up in holy martyrdom, and it is fitting that we should also look upon the scriptures that way, in that the lives of our current generation will also pass, but the word of the Lord endures forever. St. Clement of Alexandria (a saint for OO, and it appears also Eastern Catholics and Anglicans) refers to the the scriptures in this same mode, even referencing the same letter to St. Timothy, saying "truly holy are those letters that sanctify and deify" (Exhortation to the Heathen).

I would ask rhetorically if there isn't some distance between the idea that the holy scriptures perfect and sanctify and the idea that they are sufficient in learning the doctrinal points necessary for salvation. I would agree with both of these ideas, properly contextualized within the Church, which would not pit them against each other as though one has added and one has subtracted from the scriptures by this or that way. That completely misses the point, anyway. The desert fathers knew better when they said "I do said, not know":

One day some old men came to see Abba Anthony. In the midst of them was Abba Joseph. Wanting to test them, the old man suggested a text from the Scriptures, and, beginning with the youngest, he asked them what it meant. Each gave his opinion as he was able. But to each one the old man said, ‘You have not understood it.’ Last of all he said to Abba Joseph, ‘How would you explain this saying?’ and he replied, ‘I do not know.’ Then Abba Anthony ‘Indeed Abba Joseph has found the way, for he has said: “I do said, not know.”

That is why Sola Scriptura rubs me the wrong way, personally. To have some system by which you can say "this is necessary for salvation, and all the rest is commentary" or whatever would be said is not so much 'wrong' in the very specific sense that Christ our God gave a very simple definition of what eternal life is, which we can read in the scriptures and take to heart, but this approach is somewhat missing the point. The scriptures sanctify, perfect, and deify not because we have picked out from them those passages or precepts by which we may be sanctified, perfected, and deified, but because they instruct us in how we may know God, and knowing God is eternal life. They all instruct us in that, and not because we read them and pick out correct doctrine from them in a way that might satisfy our intellects (as though the same method hasn't provided fodder for every heretic in the world, as well!), but because we do them. The same St. Anthony reminds us that our life and our death are with our brothers. They are not with this hermeneutic tradition versus that one. Or, as I've heard my EO friends put it, we are saved together but damned alone. The danger of the Sola Scriptura approach, then, is certainly not with what its earliest exponents sought to do -- namely, to restore scripture to its place as the highest source in the life of the believer in the context of a Roman Catholic Church that they felt had become bogged down in other things -- but with the prime position it gives to the individual in isolation from the wider community in the erroneous belief that to do otherwise would be "following men" to the exclusion of God or what have you. (Seriously; take a look at the many, many, many parts of this website wherein a traditional Christian's reliance on the Nicene Creed is mocked in just those terms or worse...Lord have mercy.)

As you can guess by simply looking at its liturgies, the Christian religion was and still is a strongly communal religion, particularly in its older/more traditional forms such as Oriental Orthodoxy, Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman and Eastern/Oriental Catholicism, and traditional Anglicanism. Sola Scriptura of the "Just me and My Bible" variety (which, again, I want to emphasize does not seem to be what was advocated by the initial reformers; Luther, for instance, stood up for St. Mary as Theotokos, though this was dogmatically asserted in council long after the canonization of the Bible) is really a radical departure from historical and present norms, and is unacceptable, and, as the OP rightly points out, basically impossible.

 

[Albion]

I agree.
and yes the The Didache is a reference.
There hasn't been a council that was recognized as Ecumenical, since 787.
.

Not by your church, no, but the Roman Catholic Church considers more than 20 such councils to be Ecumenical Councils. And the RCC accepts the idea of Sacred Tradition in opposition to Sola Scriptura no less than your church or any other Catholic church does.

 

[Albion]

Does your church teach that the 27 books of the New Testament are the inspired word of God? If you hold this belief, then it comes from outside of Scripture itself.

I explained this several times before, but here it is again. The issue is not where it COMES FROM, but what it IS.

You are relying on something outside of Scripture for one of your core beliefs

No, we are not. That's also been explained numerous times.

 

[PeaceB]

I explained this several times before, but here it is again. The issue is not where it COMES FROM, but what it IS.


No, we are not. That's also been explained numerous times.

No. You have not explained the basis for your belief that the NT comprises the 27 books and only those 27 books. You have conceded the argument.

 

[Albion]

No. You have not explained the basis for your belief that the NT comprises the 27 books and only those 27 books.

You can start a thread to ask that question. The topic here is Sola Scriptura and, more specifically, how it differs from "Tradition" (see definition below).

"a doctrine or body of doctrines regarded as having been established by Christ or the apostles though not contained in Scripture"

 

[eldios]

So as of right now, I'm coming to the conclusion that Sola Scriptura is basically impossible. Protestants, while claiming Scripture Alone, are informed theologically by a massive library of very diverse theologians, authors, TV personalities, radio personalities, and pastors as diverse as John Calvin and Joyce Meyer who basically tell their audience what the Bible says, what it means, and how to live it out.

What's the difference between this and Tradition interpreting Scripture? Because the points of Calvinism are no where spelled out point by point in Scripture, line by line, yet Christians adhering to Reformed Soteriology interpret the Bible through the thoughts and writings of Calvin and others. Likewise Protestants generally interpret the Scriptures through the lens of Sola Fide, in spite of numerous verses that seem to indicate that our works in Christ *do* determine where we go when we die.

So in light of all this, why get upset by Catholics and Orthodox who interpret Scripture through their Tradition, when Protestants do the exact same thing, essentially? Thoughts?

You're correct. Only God can interpret the scriptures according to the program. Not one human being can understand the written gospel of God let along the spoken gospel of God. God has chosen those who would speak for Him and to listen to His gospel spoken by His chosen servants. Anyone else who thinks they can get to the Truth by reading and studying the Bible is a liar so don't trust their interpretations.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior prays in the gospel according to St. John: "And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent." (17:3)

In light of this, it does not seem unreasonable at all to say that 98% or whatever percent of the scriptures could be gone and it would still be sufficient to determine what is necessary for salvation, because Christ our God says it right there in one verse: that we may know the Father, the only true God, and Jesus Christ Whom He has sent.

But of course without the rest we would be greatly impoverished in our quest to know God (it is still entirely possible, of course, just more difficult; many a person has thought they were having a "road to Damascus" moment or a modern-day Pentecost, but were really just deluded). Our master the apostle St. Paul writes in his second epistle to his disciple Timothy that "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." (3:16-17)

This is interpreted by our father St. John Chrysostom in his ninth homily on 2 Timothy in the following way:

Having offered much exhortation and consolation from other sources, he adds that which is more perfect, derived from the Scriptures; and he is reasonably full in offering consolation, because he has a great and sad thing to say. For if Elisha, ho was with his master to his last breath, when he saw him departing as it were in death, rent his garments for grief, what think you must this disciple suffer, so loving and so beloved, upon hearing that his master was about to die, and that he could not enjoy his company when he was near his death, which is above all things apt to be distressing? For we are less grateful for the past time, when we have been deprived of the more recent intercourse of those who are departed. For this reason when he had previously offered much consolation, he then discourses concerning his own death: and this in no ordinary way, but in words adapted to comfort him and fill him with joy; so as to have it considered as a sacrifice rather than a death; a migration, as in fact it was, and a removal to a better state. "For I am now ready to be offered up", he says. For this reason he writes: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." All what Scripture? All that sacred writing, he means, of which I was speaking. This is said of what he was discoursing of; about which he said, "From a child you have known the holy Scriptures." All such, then, "is given by inspiration of God"; therefore, he means, do not doubt; and it is "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

"For doctrine." For thence we shall know, whether we ought to learn or to be ignorant of anything. And thence we may disprove what is false, thence we may be corrected and brought to a right mind, may be comforted and consoled, and if anything is deficient, we may have it added to us.

"That the man of God may be perfect." For this is the exhortation of the Scripture given, that the man of God may be rendered perfect by it; without this therefore he cannot be perfect. You have the Scriptures, he says, in place of me. If you would learn anything, you may learn it from them. And if he thus wrote to Timothy, who was filled with the Spirit, how much more to us!

+++

From this is reasonable to draw the conclusion that the early Church held the scriptures in extremely high esteem, to put it mildly, and yet their idea of what it means that they are relied upon might have been different than more modern notions of 'sufficiency'. St. John's good commentary puts the exhortation of the scriptures given by St. Paul in the context of his coming martyrdom, so that he may remind his disciple that the scriptures are there to guide him even as Paul himself is offered up in holy martyrdom, and it is fitting that we should also look upon the scriptures that way, in that the lives of our current generation will also pass, but the word of the Lord endures forever. St. Clement of Alexandria (a saint for OO, and it appears also Eastern Catholics and Anglicans) refers to the the scriptures in this same mode, even referencing the same letter to St. Timothy, saying "truly holy are those letters that sanctify and deify" (Exhortation to the Heathen).

I would ask rhetorically if there isn't some distance between the idea that the holy scriptures perfect and sanctify and the idea that they are sufficient in learning the doctrinal points necessary for salvation. I would agree with both of these ideas, properly contextualized within the Church, which would not pit them against each other as though one has added and one has subtracted from the scriptures by this or that way. That completely misses the point, anyway. The desert fathers knew better when they said "I do said, not know":

One day some old men came to see Abba Anthony. In the midst of them was Abba Joseph. Wanting to test them, the old man suggested a text from the Scriptures, and, beginning with the youngest, he asked them what it meant. Each gave his opinion as he was able. But to each one the old man said, ‘You have not understood it.’ Last of all he said to Abba Joseph, ‘How would you explain this saying?’ and he replied, ‘I do not know.’ Then Abba Anthony ‘Indeed Abba Joseph has found the way, for he has said: “I do said, not know.”

That is why Sola Scriptura rubs me the wrong way, personally. To have some system by which you can say "this is necessary for salvation, and all the rest is commentary" or whatever would be said is not so much 'wrong' in the very specific sense that Christ our God gave a very simple definition of what eternal life is, which we can read in the scriptures and take to heart, but this approach is somewhat missing the point. The scriptures sanctify, perfect, and deify not because we have picked out from them those passages or precepts by which we may be sanctified, perfected, and deified, but because they instruct us in how we may know God, and knowing God is eternal life. They all instruct us in that, and not because we read them and pick out correct doctrine from them in a way that might satisfy our intellects (as though the same method hasn't provided fodder for every heretic in the world, as well!), but because we do them. The same St. Anthony reminds us that our life and our death are with our brothers. They are not with this hermeneutic tradition versus that one. Or, as I've heard my EO friends put it, we are saved together but damned alone. The danger of the Sola Scriptura approach, then, is certainly not with what its earliest exponents sought to do -- namely, to restore scripture to its place as the highest source in the life of the believer in the context of a Roman Catholic Church that they felt had become bogged down in other things -- but with the prime position it gives to the individual in isolation from the wider community in the erroneous belief that to do otherwise would be "following men" to the exclusion of God or what have you. (Seriously; take a look at the many, many, many parts of this website wherein a traditional Christian's reliance on the Nicene Creed is mocked in just those terms or worse...Lord have mercy.)

As you can guess by simply looking at its liturgies, the Christian religion was and still is a strongly communal religion, particularly in its older/more traditional forms such as Oriental Orthodoxy, Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman and Eastern/Oriental Catholicism, and traditional Anglicanism. Sola Scriptura of the "Just me and My Bible" variety (which, again, I want to emphasize does not seem to be what was advocated by the initial reformers; Luther, for instance, stood up for St. Mary as Theotokos, though this was dogmatically asserted in council long after the canonization of the Bible) is really a radical departure from historical and present norms, and is unacceptable, and, as the OP rightly points out, basically impossible.

There is so much truth I recognize here. It's one of those cases where the question almost doesn't make sense, because we mean different things, or start from a different place, in our understanding.

If something exists outside of Scripture, that serves to draw us closer to God, whether it be monastic texts, or an allegory written by a contemporary Christian author, or what have you, it can certainly be true, and for some people it may so greatly enrich their understanding and relationship with God that it can be said to contribute a great deal to their salvation. That doesn't mean it has to be canonized, or that others won't be saved if they don't have it. Of course we don't look to it as an authority to establish doctrine, but by the Holy Scriptures lived out in the life of faith, we recognize truth, and can recognize it for ourselves in those writings.

This is a side point to the original question, but the sense I get from the original question is an effort to dice up the faith, and select only a certain core. When one is looking at a monolithic Church and considering that many of their practices and beliefs were added by men for their own purposes, and run counter to the will of God, then I understand it as a reasonable and even noble approach. But having deeply lived within my own faith for a few years now, and recognizing what it has added to me, and understanding now the meaning behind what we do, I recognize those attempts applied to my own Church to be potentially stripping away the benefits the Church offers.

I realize a Catholic may say the same, regarding his thoughts on something like the treasury of merits, which we reject. So in that sense it isn't even an argument to anyone outside of Orthodoxy. But having had very broad consideration in my faith life up to this point, and with my particular experiences, attested to by history and everything else, I have my answer. And I find those who immerse themselves in Orthodoxy likewise. Not that God can't "save" others - I believe He can and does. But I often think that only those who practice Orthodoxy can truly understand what I mean.

I'm debating not even posting this, but I've used up a lot of my typing quota to produce it, and it is true, though not perhaps on point or really furthering the discussion.

 

[~Anastasia~]

That's a reasonable point. And you're saying the church does not expect that all members will consider praying to the saints to be a correct, God-pleasing, practice?

I have a little difficulty accepting that this is the case. For one thing, if the church approves of it and practices it...what does this say about the attitude of the disbelieving member towards the authority of the church (which point has been explained to me here more that once)?

Well, the only answer is in what I already gave you. It is one thing to hold oneself as not being fully (or even partially) convinced of a thing, and at the same time allowing that the Church just might know more about it than I do, and allowing that God may help me to understand.

It is another to rigidly believe that I am right, without question, meaning the Church is wrong, I know better, I am my own authority, and that is the final word.

The first disposition is allowable. The second is one of pride and rebellion, and when rebellion is directed AT the Church, one is in opposition to her and does not belong there, at least not in full Communion. This is true of any fellowship, as we have discussed.

The heavenly host do pray for mortals. The question is whether or not it's right for US to pray TO them.

While I respond to people who talk of "praying to the Saints" it is not a phrase that I ever use. I ask for the Saints to intercede for me and for others. All "prayer" as we tend to understand the word is directed to God, in my case. The only way the Saints can be aware of our requests is through their communion with God. He alone is omniscient, He alone is able to hear our prayers, if we pray them silently.

This is the understanding of the Orthodox Church, that the Saints are not omniscient, but know of our requests only by the help, allowing, and will of God. They are with Him, not roaming the earth of their own will.

It would be correct to say that we "pray to the Saints" if one understands the ancient meaning of "pray" which is simply to ask. "I pray thee, good neighbor Martha, please lend me a few eggs and I will repay tomorrow."

However, people usually understand "pray" to refer to that special communication we have with God. In that context, I will not say we "pray to the Saints" because there is tremendous potential for misunderstanding, especially coupled with the sometimes over-the-top language used in some prayers or the shortening of some common prayers.

So yes, they pray for us. The question (to me) becomes, is it alright to ask God specifically for this one or that one to pray for us in a particular case? If that's a big problem for someone, they need not do it. But I have seen small miracles happen on more than one occasion when I did, especially as I was first trying this. And the only way we canonize people who died apart from martyrdom is if documented miracles occur as a result of asking their intercessions. If God is displeased with the practice, He has a funny way of showing it.

(And I don't mean that to be snide either, but being as the requests and answers had a spiritual component in each case - three prayers for me - it is very difficult to attribute the results to demons either, as well as the fact that they were silent prayers. But this is just my own experience, of course.)

 

[~Anastasia~]

Meaning what, exactly?

All I meant is that the conciliar model was present in the book of Acts, used by the Apostles themselves. Meaning there is a precedent for this form of Church governance.

 

[Albion]

While I respond to people who talk of "praying to the Saints" it is not a phrasge that I ever use. I ask for the Saints to intercede for me and for others.

Certainly. We all tend to use more elegant or more theological language when we speak of these things, but it IS praying to the saints. There's nothing incorrect about putting it that way, and BTW it is sometimes important to go ahead and put it that way when engaged in a multidenominational discussion.

That may be especially important when speaking of this particular issue because slight changes in wording can and has confused the issue in the past. For example, praying to the saints isn't the saints praying for us, yet I've seen that twisted around countless times on these forum.

All "prayer" as we tend to understand the word is directed to God, in my case. The only way the Saints can be aware of our requests is through their communion with God. He alone is omniscient, He alone is able to hear our prayers, if we pray them silently.

I cannot say what your practice is, but many people pray TO St. Jude or the Virgin or some other saint asking for their intercession with God...and that is not the same as praying to God, even if we are asking the saint to act on our behalf and pass the petition along to the Father.

This is the understanding of the Orthodox Church, that the Saints are not omniscient, but know of our requests only by the help, allowing, and will of God.

The issue is not that they are omniscient; it's that the prayers are addressed to them in the belief that they have more influence with God than we do ourselves. As I say, I don't know what you do yourself or, for that matter, what every member of your church does, but to deny that it's widespread and approved of by the church would be wrong.

So yes, they pray for us. The question (to me) becomes, is it alright to ask God specifically for this one or that one to pray for us in a particular case?

Why would anyone ask God to allow a saint in heaven to pray to God on our behalf?

 

[All4Christ]

Certainly. We all tend to use more elegant or more theological language when we speak of these things, but it IS praying to the saints. There's nothing incorrect about putting it that way, and BTW it is sometimes important to go ahead and put it that way when engaged in a multidenominational discussion.

That may be especially important when speaking of this particular issue because slight changes in wording can and has confused the issue in the past. For example, praying to the saints isn't the saints praying for us, yet I've seen that twisted around countless times on these forum.


I cannot say what your practice is, but many people pray TO St. Jude or the Virgin or some other saint asking for their intercession with God...and that is not the same as praying to God, even if we are asking the saint to act on our behalf and pass the petition along to the Father.


The issue is not that they are omniscient; it's that the prayers are addressed to them in the belief that they have more influence with God than we do ourselves. As I say, I don't know what you do yourself or, for that matter, what every member of your church does, but to deny that it's widespread and approved of by the church would be wrong.


Why would anyone ask God to allow a saint in heaven to pray to God on our behalf?

Just for clarification, asking for the intercession patron saints for specific purposes is not dogma or required. It is more along the lines of adiaphora in the Orthodox Church. Certainly some Akathists are like that, and many ask for the prayers of those who experienced similar situations...not in replacement for prayers to God, but in addition.

Another question for you: what is the reason for multiple people praying to God for a specific need? Why do people ask for the prayers of other Christians?

I'm asking this as a starting point for further discussion and understanding

 

[Albion]

Another question for you: what is the reason for multiple people praying to God for a specific need?

Why not?

Why do people ask for the prayers of other Christians?

I'm asking this as a starting point for further discussion and understanding

This practice, as you know, is specifically recommended (and, therefore, approved) in Holy Scripture. We can hardly consider it to be wrong, therefore. But if you're laying the groundwork for saying that the deceased (who, yes, are still alive as spirits) are in the same category as our neighbors and therefore are covered by the same Bible verse, no.

Not only is it wrong to pray to those who have passed on, but we neither know if they CAN hear us or that the saint being prayed to actually is in heaven. That's just an assumption we make, and in your church it's done simply by popular agreement of the living members of the church.

 

[FenderTL5]

[Quotes truncated for brevity]

My point there was that we've been talking about Sola Scripture vs. what the 'catholic' churches such as the RC and EO teach instead..

..the Roman Catholic Church considers more than 20 such councils to be Ecumenical Councils. And the RCC accepts the idea of Sacred Tradition in opposition to Sola Scriptura no less than your church or any other Catholic church does.

It may (or may not I don't know) be helpful to point out that the RCC and the EO do not view Tradition exactly the same way. In fact, the issue of 'authority' was a catalyst of the schism and why the RCC and EO are not in full communion with one another. IMHO, this same issue is present in the Reformation and why we even discuss Sola Scriptura.

 

[Albion]

[Quotes truncated for brevity]




It may (or may not I don't know) be helpful to point out that the RCC and the EO do not view Tradition exactly the same way.

I know, but it's similar...and both reject Sola Scriptura on the same grounds.

In fact, the issue of 'authority' was a catalyst of the schism and why the RCC and EO are not in full communion with one another. IMHO, this same issue is present in the Reformation and why we even discuss Sola Scriptura.

certainly a point worth bringing up.

 

[FireDragon76]

But no Protestant attends seminary and uses only the Bible.... There's tonnes of commentaries, books, lectures, and papers used to guide the student in the hopefully correct application and interpretation of Scripture. What's the diff?

It's not so strange to be interested in the opinions of many people, is it? As opposed to only being interested in the opinions of one man?

I just don't read the Bible much, to be honest. Nor do I read alot of theology now days. I'm not interested in it. As a Lutheran those things aren't important parts of my faith. Hearing the Gospel and receiving the Lord's Supper are the important parts of my faith. We aren't necessarily intellectuals, not until perhaps one becomes a pastor or a theologian. And even then ,there are some pastors or theologians that are more mystically or experientially inclined, rather than scholastic.