An Observation

[Fair_Lady]

Your example here, as you say, is absurd. But it makes the point that our faith is backed up by REASON.

Yes, and reason tells me that once our loved ones are with the Lord, we are not in communication with them any longer. That is, until the day we meet them again. Halleluah!

For many decades, there was no bible for the faithful to turn to for instruction. What did they do? They used their God-given reason, the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and the stories and traditions that had been handed down to them by the apostles (the very traditions that Paul speaks of in his letter to the Thessalonians).

However, those people did have the scriptures from the prophets. The Bereans were noted to have practised the diligent searching of the scriptures. Acts 17:11 points out “Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true”. The Bereans are a wonderful example for us to follow. I don’t listen to any pastor or minister of God’s word without comparing what they say against God’s word. I don’t care if the speaker is educated til the cows come home; what he says needs to line up with scripture.

Christians are not called to be of two minds…the reasonable, everyday mind that we use at our jobs and on the freeway, and then the unreasonable, faithful mind. No…faith and reason go hand in hand.

Amen!

I might add that the are many non-Catholic actions and traditions that the bible doesn’t explicity tell us to do…female preachers, altar calls, community service trips for teens, grape juice in separate cups, etc.

I can agree with that except for the female preachers - the Bible definitely gives the role of preaching to the male gender, but I don’t want to get into that. That’s a whole other topic. The rest of those things, I don’t see as foundational to the faith as the way in which we relate to God through prayer.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’m not sure how I can make myself any more clear than to say that the Bible should be the foundation of all of our beliefs. It does not contain every “don’t”, but the principle will be there if it is something we need to know.

For instance, as I mentioned earlier, it doesn’t specifically say not to pray to a dead monkey. Now that is an absurd example, but it makes the point. Should we pray to a dead monkey just because the Bible doesn’t say not to? No. In the same way, the Bible doesn’t say specifically we are not to pray to Mary or other saints that have gone before us.

Instead, the Bible TELLS US WHAT TO DO. That is important. Again, I refer you to the verses I posted earlier with regards to prayer. The Bible tells us to pray to God. Therefore, I pray to God only. It’s not a double standard. It’s God’s standard for us. And yes, it is in the Bible.

Does the Bible tell us to baptize infants? Or does the Bible tell us not to baptize infants?

If it’s “in the Bible” as you say, then what chapter and verse provides the answer.

Billions of Christians on both sides of this question await your response.

 

[Fair_Lady]

Here’s what I still don’t understand then. The Bible tells us to pray for others and, as you have said, you ask others to pray for you. You have quoted scripture to support that. However, you have not quoted scripture to support your view that we are to immediately stop asking others to pray for us once they have died.

There’s nothing to suggest in scripture that the saints will even hear us. However the Bible does warn us strongly against calling on spirits. I believe that praying to someone outside of divinity is dangerously close to calling on spirits. If you want me to, I’ll find the time to post scripture against calling on spirits.

Aren’t there many times in scripture where angels have “crossed the realm”, to use your words, and interacted with humans and humans have interacted with them? A good example would be Mary’s interaction with the angel Gabriel (“how can this be since I know not a man”, “be it done to me according to thy word”, etc.).

Yes, angels can do that. God created them to be messengers and they have the capability to cross over from heaven to earth and vice versa.

Please provide scriptural references that speak of not asking for others’ intercession once they have passed away. Please provide scriptural references that give that sense. You have already stated things that you do and believe that are not in scripture and you have thus gone away from your “do ONLY what the Bible tells us”.

I think it should be the other way around. I’m laying my beliefs firmly on the grounds of what scripture tells us to do in this vein. I’d love to see scripture that tells us to continue to ask for intercession from people who have passed and if you can find it, please share it. However, the Bible does reveal who actually makes intercession for us in heaven:

4.Romans 8:26
Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
Romans 8:25-27 (in Context) Romans 8 (Whole Chapter)

5.Romans 8:27
Now He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God.
Romans 8:26-28 (in Context) Romans 8 (Whole Chapter)

6.Romans 8:34
Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us.
Romans 8:33-35 (in Context) Romans 8 (Whole Chapter)

Hebrews 7:24-26 (New King James Version)
24 But He, because He continues forever, has an unchangeable priesthood. 25 Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.
26 For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who isholy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens;

Thanks for starting this conversation. Looking forward to your answers.

You’re welcome. Thank you for being gracious.

 

[Randy_Carson]

There’s nothing to suggest in scripture that the saints will even hear us. However the Bible does warn us strongly against calling on spirits. I believe that praying to someone outside of divinity is dangerously close to calling on spirits. If you want me to, I’ll find the time to post scripture against calling on spirits.

You do that. In the meantime:

The Saints Can Hear Our Prayers Proved From Scripture

---

1. Jesus teaches from the Old Testament****

“Have you not read in the book of Moses, in the account of the bush, how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!” (Mark 12:26-27)

In this teaching, Jesus tells us plainly that the Father is the God of the living.

2. Speaking with the “Dead” - Jesus teaches by parable

---

"There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores. "The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’ But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’ He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father’s house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’ Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’ ‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’ He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”(Luke 16:19-31)

In this parable, Jesus has two of the “dead” characters in his story talking with one another, and one of the “dead” men intercedes on behalf of his living relatives.

3. Speaking with the “Dead” - Jesus teaches by personal example

---

“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.” (Matthew 17:1-3)

At the transfiguration, Jesus was talking with two “dead” people, Moses and Elijah. They’re actually alive, though.****

4. Speaking to the dead – Peter teaches by example

---

“Peter sent them all out of the room; then he got down on his knees and prayed. Turning toward the dead woman, he said, “Tabitha, get up.” She opened her eyes, and seeing Peter she sat up. He took her by the hand and helped her to her feet. Then he called the believers and the widows and presented her to them alive.” (Acts 9:40-41)

---

5. Those in Heaven Hear Our Prayers - John teaches through prophetic revelation****

---

“He came and took the scroll from the right hand of him who sat on the throne. And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.” (Revelation 5:7-8)

The 24 elders in heaven are men, and notice that they each have a golden bowl full of the prayers of the saints. That’s us since we’re all saints! So, how did they get hold of our prayers in order to offer them to God?

“Another angel, who had a golden censer, came and stood at the altar. He was given much incense to offer, with the prayers of all the saints, on the golden altar before the throne.” (Revelation 8:3)

Here, an angel also offers our prayers along with incense. ****

 

[LittleSoldier]

I’m not sure how I can make myself any more clear than to say that the Bible should be the foundation of all of our beliefs. It does not contain every “don’t”, but the principle will be there if it is something we need to know.

What I have seen is that you side-step every time someone asks you to provide scripture, including the times you have added to scripture by saying “I’m sure that…” Again, I ask you what makes you so sure? Please read post #78 and respond to that post again. You, yourself, personally add to scripture. And you don’t seem to see a problem with that. Why is it OK for you to add to scripture but it’s not OK for Catholics to do things that are not even found in scripture?

For instance, as I mentioned earlier, it doesn’t specifically say not to pray to a dead monkey. Now that is an absurd example, but it makes the point. Should we pray to a dead monkey just because the Bible doesn’t say not to? No. In the same way, the Bible doesn’t say specifically we are not to pray to Mary or other saints that have gone before us.

Yet you somehow find the need (and authority) to add to scripture by being sure what Jesus would do. You put words in Jesus’ mouth.

Instead, the Bible TELLS US WHAT TO DO. That is important. Again, I refer you to the verses I posted earlier with regards to prayer. The Bible tells us to pray to God. Therefore, I pray to God only. It’s not a double standard. It’s God’s standard for us. And yes, it is in the Bible.

Yes, the Bible tells us what to do. But where in the Bible does it state that we should only do what is stated in the Bible? Why can’t you answer this simple question? I not asking you to provide an infinite list of “Thou shalt nots.” I am asking you to show the authority, based in scripture, that tells all of us that we can do only what is in the Bible.

Every time you are asked this you side-step. Please answer the question. I will repeat it: Where does it say in the Bible that we should do only what is stated in the Bible? This shouldn’t be a difficult question to answer and is really the basis for what you are stating in this thread. If you can’t answer it please stop saying that it is wrong for Catholics to do things which are not stated in the Bible. You are doing this yourself and that is a double standard. Where does it say in scripture that you can add to scripture? Please answer the question and please don’t side-step it.

 

[Fair_Lady]

Does the Bible tell us to baptize infants?

No.

Or does the Bible tell us not to baptize infants?

This is digressing a bit from the topic at hand, but I don’t mind answering a question or two in case it is helpful. I don’t find anything to indicate that infant baptism was a practise in biblical times. But what the Bible does tell us is to believe and be baptized. In order to believe, one must have the maturity to understand, which an infant does not.

If it’s “in the Bible” as you say, then what chapter and verse provides the answer.

Billions of Christians on both sides of this question await your response.

Happy to oblige.

Mark 16:16
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Acts 8:12
But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were **baptized, both men and women.**Acts 8:13
Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.

Acts 18:8
And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.

Now I know that I’m going to hear some rumblings on that last verse, that if “all his house” was baptized, it must include infants. My answer to that is that many, many households do not have infants so it cannot be rightly assumed that infants were definitely present there. Instead the gist of the verse is that believers were baptized.

Anyhow, if we need to discuss baptism further, I’d like to take it to another thread. Have a great day everyone! It’s mighty cold here in the great white northern Alberta, Canada (-27 C)

 

[Fair_Lady]

What I have seen is that you side-step every time someone asks you to provide scripture, including the times you have added to scripture by saying “I’m sure that…” Again, I ask you what makes you so sure? Please read post #78 and respond to that post again. You, yourself, personally add to scripture. And you don’t seem to see a problem with that. Why is it OK for you to add to scripture but it’s not OK for Catholics to do things that are not even found in scripture?

Yet you somehow find the need (and authority) to add to scripture by being sure what Jesus would do. You put words in Jesus’ mouth.

Yes, the Bible tells us what to do. But where in the Bible does it state that we should only do what is stated in the Bible? Why can’t you answer this simple question? I not asking you to provide an infinite list of “Thou shalt nots.” I am asking you to show the authority, based in scripture, that tells all of us that we can do only what is in the Bible.

Every time you are asked this you side-step. Please answer the question. I will repeat it: Where does it say in the Bible that we should do only what is stated in the Bible? This shouldn’t be a difficult question to answer and is really the basis for what you are stating in this thread. If you can’t answer it please stop saying that it is wrong for Catholics to do things which are not stated in the Bible. You are doing this yourself and that is a double standard. Where does it say in scripture that you can add to scripture? Please answer the question and please don’t side-step it.

I see you posted about the time I was working on my last one. I’m going to have to wait until later to answer you and Rand’s last post…you guys are just keeping me hopping here!

 

[LittleSoldier]

That’s a good point SPH1. According to FairLady: “If God wanted us to Pray to the Saints He would have given us ‘clear’ instructions to do so.”

So by her example, Jesus’ clear instructions was to Pray to God the Father only. So it seems they weren’t so clear after all unless of course we aren’t supposed to Pray to God the Father or to Jesus after He died.

Not to mention the Holy Spirit. And here I thought it was OK to pray to Jesus and the Holy Spirit. :bigyikes:

What you brought up is a very good point!!

 

[Randy_Carson]

No.

This is digressing a bit from the topic at hand, but I don’t mind answering a question or two in case it is helpful. I don’t find anything to indicate that infant baptism was a practise in biblical times. But what the Bible does tell us is to believe and be baptized. In order to believe, one must have the maturity to understand, which an infant does not.

Happy to oblige.

Mark 16:16
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Acts 8:12
But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were **baptized, both men and women.**Acts 8:13
Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.

Acts 18:8
And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.

Now I know that I’m going to hear some rumblings on that last verse, that if “all his house” was baptized, it must include infants. My answer to that is that many, many households do not have infants so it cannot be rightly assumed that infants were definitely present there. Instead the gist of the verse is that believers were baptized.

Anyhow, if we need to discuss baptism further, I’d like to take it to another thread. Have a great day everyone! It’s mighty cold here in the great white northern Alberta, Canada (-27 C)

I’m afraid you have not obliged at all.

The verses you post do not prohibit infant baptism whatsoever; they suggest that those who heard the gospel message believed what they heard and were baptized as the message required. However, the examples you gave concerned adult converts and do not address the matter of infant baptism at all.

As you know, the Jews were accustomed to circumcising infants according to the law, and Paul even calls baptism the “circumcision of Christ” - a choice of words that would have more meaning for his audience than for us today. Further, writings from the early Church reveal that the Church was not concerned about whether infants should be baptized but about how quickly they should be baptized.

In order to meet the standard that you have established, I need to see a verse that says, “Thou shalt not baptize infants” or something that is unambiguous.

Again, Christians on both sides of this issue would benefit from any guidance that you have to offer from within the pages of scripture alone.

Or are you beginning to see the problem of going by the Bible Alone?

 

[cecilia97]

I’m afraid you have not obliged at all.

The verses you post do not prohibit infant baptism whatsoever; they suggest that those who heard the gospel message believed what they heard and were baptized as the message required. However, the examples you gave concerned adult converts and do not address the matter of infant baptism at all.

As you know, the Jews were accustomed to circumcising infants according to the law, and Paul even calls baptism the “circumcision of Christ” - a choice of words that would have more meaning for his audience than for us today. Further, writings from the early Church reveal that the Church was not concerned about whether infants should be baptized but about how quickly they should be baptized.

In order to meet the standard that you have established, I need to see a verse that says, “Thou shalt not baptize infants” or something that is unambiguous.

Again, Christians on both sides of this issue would benefit from any guidance that you have to offer from within the pages of scripture alone.

Or are you beginning to see the problem of going by the Bible Alone?

Not to mention the rather stong evidence FOR infant baptism in the New Tewstament:

Lydia and her HOUSEHOLD in Acts 16:15
Stephanas and his HOUSEHOLD in 1 Cor 1:16
and
the jailer and his HOUSEHOLD in Acts 16:33

 

[Kay_Cee]

I’m not sure how I can make myself any more clear than to say that the Bible should be the foundation of all of our beliefs.

This is the problem, right here. Where on earth are you getting this idea? Are you getting it from the Bible? Where does the Bible say “the Bible should be the foundation of all our beliefs”? If it doesn’t say that, (and it doesn’t) why do you believe it? If the Bible should be the foundation of ALL your beliefs, and you believe it, isn’t that belief one of your beliefs? But your belief that the Bible should be the foundation of ALL your beliefs is not found in the Bible!!!

I’m not sure how I can make myself any more clear than to say this belief of yours is self-contradictory.

It does not contain every “don’t”, but the principle will be there if it is something we need to know.

And where are you getting this idea? Where does the Bible say it does not contain every “don’t” but the principle will be there if it is something we need to know?

For instance, as I mentioned earlier, it doesn’t specifically say not to pray to a dead monkey. Now that is an absurd example, but it makes the point. Should we pray to a dead monkey just because the Bible doesn’t say not to? No. In the same way, the Bible doesn’t say specifically we are not to pray to Mary or other saints that have gone before us.

Here’s the problem with what you just said. Your implication is that if the Bible doesn’t specifically say it’s so, then it’s not so. Well, the Bible doesn’t specifically say that Joseph and Mary had sexual relations, does it? So by your own criteria, they didn’t.

Instead, the Bible TELLS US WHAT TO DO. That is important. Again, I refer you to the verses I posted earlier with regards to prayer. The Bible tells us to pray to God. Therefore, I pray to God only. It’s not a double standard. It’s God’s standard for us. And yes, it is in the Bible.

If the Bible TELLS US WHAT TO DO, then doesn’t it follow that it tells us how to form our belief system? Yet above you told me the Bible “does not contain every ‘don’t’ but the principle will be there if it is something we need to know.” Where does the Bible tells us to base our beliefs upon that? Once again you are asking me to believe something not found in the Bible.

You’re trying to sidestep the issue. The fact is you expect us to believe you when you tell us things nowhere found in scripture. Then you turn around and claim the Bible tells us what to do and that you won’t believe something unless it’s specifically stated in scripture.

In posts 53, 61, 67, 78, and 83 you were asked to provide scripture to back up things you ask us to believe. Either provide the scripture or stop claiming everything we believe must be found in scripture.

 

[Fair_Lady]

Instead of addressing each concern that deals with my use of scripture, I’ll address this to all of you. Maybe it will help. I’ve been scratching my head, wondering why the fuss over the use of scripture as the ultimate authority. I think the missing link may be that your view of scripture is totally different than mine. Tell me if I’m right or wrong. Here are a few basic points that are foundational to why I use scripture:

1. God revealed Himself to us through His written Word which was recorded by men who were inspired by Him.
2. The Bible is absolute truth and we can depend on it because God is Truth and because He gave us His word.
3. The scriptures are totally sufficient to give us the information we need to become the Christians we ought to be in the sight of God.

Here’s an excellent article that will explain my dependence on scripture:
christiananswers.net/q-eden/sola-scriptura-bible.html

I’d also be interested in hearing from each of you as to how much you study the Bible. Does the Bible hold your interest?

 

[dcrowmik]

Here’s an excellent article that will explain my dependence on scripture:
christiananswers.net/q-eden/sola-scriptura-bible.html

Let’s all not get off topic and into a sola scriptura discussion – start another discussion for that. Here are some references to read from the Catholic viewpoint.

Anyway, Fair Lady, let’s get back to your original discussion: that is, “undo” focus on Mary and, by extension, prohibition of asking for intercession from anyone in Heaven other than God (because you have already shown it’s OK to ask for intercessory prayer from people here on Earth).

Again, you’ve talked about “realm” a couple times and how dying causes one to cross this realm to another, and that once that happens we can no longer ask ANYONE who may be in the other realm for their intercessory prayer – Mary, the saints or even the angels (you even said you would NOT pray to your Guardian Angel).

You never have answered my question on where that instruction can be found in scripture nor have you provided any scriptural references that even provide that “sense of scripture” in supporting your claim. I really am interested in how you can claim that because I can’t find it anywhere.

Thanks, Fair Lady, for challenging us and helping us to continue to think about our Catholic faith. I’m hopefully awaiting your answer.

 

[Cristian_B]

This is to the people that wrongly say that because Mary is Jesus’ mother, her prayers are more powerful. Jesus tells us: "Everyone who does the will of my Father is my mother, brother and sister."

 

[Randy_Carson]

Instead of addressing each concern that deals with my use of scripture, I’ll address this to all of you. Maybe it will help. I’ve been scratching my head, wondering why the fuss over the use of scripture as the ultimate authority. I think the missing link may be that your view of scripture is totally different than mine. Tell me if I’m right or wrong. Here are a few basic points that are foundational to why I use scripture:

1. God revealed Himself to us through His written Word which was recorded by men who were inspired by Him.

Hebrews 1:1-2
1In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.

God has revealed Himself in many ways - not through the written Word alone.

1. The Bible is absolute truth and we can depend on it because God is Truth and because He gave us His word.

[1 Timothy 3:15](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/passage/?search=1 Timothy+3:15&version=NIV)
if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

The Church, not the Bible, is the pillar and foundation of the Truth.

1. The scriptures are totally sufficient to give us the information we need to become the Christians we ought to be in the sight of God.

Matthew 18:17
If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

The Church, not the Bible, is the final arbiter of what is right and what is wrong.

Moreover, as I pointed out to you previously, the Bible is not “totally sufficient” to clarify basic doctrinal disagreements over central issues like infant baptism.

You chose to defend the interpretation that opposes infant baptism. Many Protestants reject your belief based upon THEIR interpretation of those same scriptures. They’re not stupid. The problem is that the Bible is materially sufficient, but not formally sufficient.

Finally, I believe that you, as someone who goes by the Bible Alone, have a serious question to answer:

Where does the Bible teach that we must go by the Bible Alone?

The Evangelical starts with the assumption that scripture existed first and that tradition was slowly and incrementally added to it as time progressed. However, the original deposit of faith was given to the Apostles years before New Testament Scripture was ever penned. The Church was founded on this truth from Christ. Some of this deposit was then written in Scripture, some was scrupulously passed from bishop to bishop as oral tradition, and some was later clarified as dogma by the agreement of the bishops in the councils of the Church.

These sources, of course, should be expected not to contradict each other. If the Church teaches something as true, it is justifiable to check that it is not contradicted by Scripture. But if the Church teaches something and the Bible is silent or ambiguous, that does not mean the teaching is any less truly a part of the original deposit of faith given the Apostles. The focus must shift from what is biblical to what is true. The first is always contained in the second, but all of the second is not necessarily contained in the first.

When an Evangelical asks, “Where is that doctrine in the Bible?”, the correct response is “First show me from Scripture why you believe all Christian doctrines must be in the Bible.” It can be frustrating for Evangelicals to confront this issue, but it is important for them to understand the lack of biblical basis for their question. Truth is at issue here.

Adapted from Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic by David B. Currie, pp.61-62.

 

[Randy_Carson]

This is to the people that wrongly say that because Mary is Jesus’ mother, her prayers are more powerful. Jesus tells us: "Everyone who does the will of my Father is my mother, brother and sister."

James 5:16
Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.

If James makes this distinction, should we conclude that the prayers of someone who is not righteous are not powerful and ineffective? I think so. Thus, some of us pray more powerfully than others.

Since we know that those already in heaven are perfect, are their prayers more powerful than those of us who are righteous but not perfect here on earth?

And of those saints in heaven, is there anyone greater than Mary?

(That should stir the pot. )

 

[Kay_Cee]

Instead of addressing each concern that deals with my use of scripture, I’ll address this to all of you. Maybe it will help. I’ve been scratching my head, wondering why the fuss over the use of scripture as the ultimate authority. I think the missing link may be that your view of scripture is totally different than mine. Tell me if I’m right or wrong. Here are a few basic points that are foundational to why I use scripture:

1. God revealed Himself to us through His written Word which was recorded by men who were inspired by Him.

This is correct.

1. The Bible is absolute truth and we can depend on it because God is Truth and because He gave us His word.

This is also correct. All scripture is inspired by God.

1. The scriptures are totally sufficient to give us the information we need to become the Christians we ought to be in the sight of God.

Where does scripture say, “The scriptures are totally sufficient to give us the information we need to become the Christians we ought to be in the sight of God”? If it doesn’t, how can scripture be sufficient enough to give you that idea? And if it’s not sufficient enough to do that, how can it be “totally sufficient”?

If, as you say, scripture is “totally sufficient,” why do you keep expecting me to believe things nowhere found in scripture?

Also, it should be obvious that the Bible is not sufficient to tell us which books belong in the Bible, a fact you yourself admitted when you said you rely on faith, not scripture, for that.

Once again, you are trying to deflect the argument. You have told us things you expect us to believe which are nowhere found in scripture, but when I call you on it, instead of giving scripture to support your position, you tell me something else not found in scripture.

In posts 53, 61, 67, 78, and 83 you were asked to provide scripture to back up things you ask us to believe. Either provide the scripture or stop claiming everything we believe must be found in scripture. This request is not going away.

 

[Cristian_B]

That’s a good point SPH1. According to FairLady: “If God wanted us to Pray to the Saints He would have given us ‘clear’ instructions to do so.”

So by her example, Jesus’ clear instructions was to Pray to God the Father only. So it seems they weren’t so clear after all unless of course we aren’t supposed to Pray to God the Father or to Jesus after He died.

Study the Scriptures because they hold the truth: I [Jesus] and the Father are one. (John 10:30)

 

[Cristian_B]

This is the problem, right here. Where on earth are you getting this idea? Are you getting it from the Bible? Where does the Bible say “the Bible should be the foundation of all our beliefs”? If it doesn’t say that, (and it doesn’t) why do you believe it? If the Bible should be the foundation of ALL your beliefs, and you believe it, isn’t that belief one of your beliefs? But your belief that the Bible should be the foundation of ALL your beliefs is not found in the Bible!!! …]

Uh… the Bible?

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. (Luke 1:1-4)

Can it be any clearer than that?

 

[Cristian_B]

This is correct.
Where does scripture say, “The scriptures are totally sufficient to give us the information we need to become the Christians we ought to be in the sight of God”? If it doesn’t, how can scripture be sufficient enough to give you that idea? And if it’s not sufficient enough to do that, how can it be “totally sufficient”? …]

Uhhh…again in the Bible?

Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. (John 20:30-31)

So, if John (according to John 21:24, John’s testimony is true) said that his epistle is enough for us to believe and get life, isn’t the rest of the Bible more than enough? Yes it is. In fact God gave us epistles and the Old Testament are just in case someone would have doubts regarding an aspect of their lives. The epistles are a “bonus” from God.