Sola Scriptura...

[spina1953]

And I would add that this fracturing and splintering into over tens of thousands of differing Christian denominations has occurred in just 500 years.

For 1500 years, when the CC held authority, she was able to maintain a relative Christian unity.

Within just 500 years we know have thousands upon thousands of Christian denominations.

That is an obscenity.

Thanks for your thoughts and I agree with you on that score. This idea of SBFA really does not make any real sense. it seems to me that if it were true and Luther is correct in his thinking why did not the Catholic Church; the ECF and other theologians see this and proclaim it in their writings? IOW’s How is it that Luther saw it but no one else in the Catholic Church or any of the great many Catholic theologians since the beginning of the Catholic Church or why did not the Apostles teach this or Jesus Himself. it stands to reason that it was not is because it does not hold water and is false teaching and doctrine.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

Trent not being ecumenical has nothing to do with Luther, or the Reformers attending or not attending. The determining factor in the undivided Church that makes a council ecumenical can’t be attained today because of the Schism.

Actually Trent not being Ecumenical (to you) has everything to do with Luther and the Protestants not attending. You seem to infer that Trent never could have been Ecumenical because the Eastern Orthodox had left the Church 500 years earlier? This would mean that, according to you, there cannot be an Ecumenical Council, ever again, unless ALL of the 17 EOC denominations AND ALL of the virtually uncountable Protestant denominations participate. We both know that that isn’t going to happen, and also that your position allows you to (illogically) escape admitting the responsibility that the Protestants had (and have) for NOT attending Trent. After all, they could have attended and agreed to abide by the decisions reached, with or without the EOC. But they didn’t and that makes them very responsible for our current division.

On a very related topic, my post number 828 was written entirely to set up the only section which you seem to have not seen. I think that this section and the questions it contains is extremely important because it suggests a way in which our two communions could actually achieve doctrinal unity. In fact, I would suggest that it is the ONLY WAY. That being said, I would like to repost it (in blue) and will await your specific numerical answers.

OK, so you say that you think an Ecumenical Council is a good idea and that you would follow the decisions of such a council. Now though, we get down to the details and the specifics, which are never a strong suit for Protestants. The question now is how to apportion the votes. Again, say that there are 100 votes and let’s say that the only way to achieve a final decision is to have the majority rule, after praying to the Holy Spirit to provide guidance such that a “Holy Decision” is reached. So Jon, how many votes should go to each of the various factions? A numerical answer is necessary of course.

RCC - __________ Votes; EOC - __________ Votes; Lutherans - ______Votes; Non-Lutheran Protestants ________Votes

Please fill in the blanks such the total is 100. BTW, nobody is allowed to pick up their ball and leave when they see that the trend of the Council is going against their position.

As always, God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;11643240]

Actually Trent not being Ecumenical (to you) has everything to do with Luther and the Protestants not attending.

Luther was not able to attend Trent, and the other Reformers feared for their lives if they went.

You seem to infer that Trent never could have been Ecumenical because the Eastern Orthodox had left the Church 500 years earlier? This would mean that, according to you, there cannot be an Ecumenical Council, ever again, unless ALL of the 17 EOC denominations AND ALL of the virtually uncountable Protestant denominations participate.

I didn’t infer it. I said it flat out. And you are half correct, there cannot be a truly ecumenical council without the patriarchs and bishops of Orthodoxy. That’s how the early Church did them. One patriarch, one his own cannot have a truly ecumenical council. I never said anything about protestants. And by the way, I am not Orthodox, and do not pretend to speak for them, but Orthodoxy is not denominational, and it seems to me the accusation that they are is provocative. AFAIK, the Catholic Church also does not refer to them in that way.

We both know that that isn’t going to happen, and also that your position allows you to (illogically) escape admitting the responsibility that the Protestants had (and have) for NOT attending Trent. After all, they could have attended and agreed to abide by the decisions reached, with or without the EOC. But they didn’t and that makes them very responsible for our current division.

I haven’t refuted the share in the responsibility that the Reformers hold,. The fact is they were in fear of their safety.

On a very related topic, my post number 828 was written entirely to set up the only section which you seem to have not seen.

Actually, I ignored it because of the accusation you made against me regarding the use of the term “anti-Christ” in regards the papacy.

I think that this section and the questions it contains is extremely important because it suggests a way in which our two communions could actually achieve doctrinal unity. In fact, I would suggest that it is the ONLY WAY. That being said, I would like to repost it (in blue) and will await your specific numerical answers.

You think this is really important?

OK, so you say that you think an Ecumenical Council is a good idea and that you would follow the decisions of such a council. Now though, we get down to the details and the specifics, which are never a strong suit for Protestants. The question now is how to apportion the votes. Again, say that there are 100 votes and let’s say that the only way to achieve a final decision is to have the majority rule, after praying to the Holy Spirit to provide guidance such that a “Holy Decision” is reached. So Jon, how many votes should go to each of the various factions? A numerical answer is necessary of course.

RCC - __________ Votes; EOC - __________ Votes; Lutherans - ______Votes; Non-Lutheran Protestants ________Votes

Please fill in the blanks such the total is 100. BTW, nobody is allowed to pick up their ball and leave when they see that the trend of the Council is going against their position.

How about I leave it in the hands of those who actually would have the say in the matter, were it to come to that.

Jon

 

[youbigdummy]

and the debate goes on --Christians believe that Scripture alone is our highest authority, but does that mean it is our only authority? What implications does that have for us when it comes to issues that Scripture doesn’t address? Pastor Mark Driscoll investigates the doctrine of Sola Scriptura

youtu.be/7tuK2WJUlFM

First, thank you for using the word “some” as a qualifier. For lurkers out there who might think “all” protestants…

Quote:
=ericc;11617548]Among some Protestants they didn’t like his “Faith without works is Dead” verse
There may be some, but I think more often it is James 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? , and 2:24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone., as they are seen in conflict with the Doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone. I don’t see either of them that way because James is speaking to Christians, and is intent on providing a guide on how to live in response to Grace
Quote:
and sometimes they don’t like James 5:16 too as it support Catholic sacrament of Confession. Protestants apparently don’t like to confess their sins to one another, only to God, although God told them to.
I think many of those you speak of understand confessing to one another as meaning to the ones you have sinned against, or to the whole congregation. They simply don’t believe in confession to a priest, missing the point of binding and loosing. Not all protestants take that stand, including Lutherans who practice corporate and private confession to a pastor/confessor

Quote:
They don’t like Catholics to pray for one another too, especially the ones living in heaven. I can never figure out why not as those in heaven are proven to be righteous and the prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects.
It isn’t that they don’t believe in praying for each other. It is just that they don’t believe those who have died can hear our prayers. Lutherans make no comment on that, except to say that scripture gives no command, example, or promise regarding invocation of the saints. We do believe they pray for us, however.

Quote:
Seems like a great resource not utilized and miss the chance to network with the rich and famous (in spirit). Isn’t it nice when you turn up there and you have tons of friends waiting for you there? Pity.
I think you make a good point here, as it seems many Catholics receive great peace from the practice.

Jon

---

It would be easy to fill many pages with the declarations of the Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, and of her great theologians, who, without a dissenting voice, repudiate this doctrine [consubstantiation]…
And no is stating Clement is making a declaration for infallibility. Universal jurisdiction is one thing and infallibility is another. You are getting your wires mixed up and the results usually are bad.
I know the difference, and the sentence I wrote doesn’t confuse them. It simply states that Clement does not seem to be acting as a Pope; at least not as the 21st century Roman Church would understand the “developed” sense of that office.

Default Re: Sola Scriptura…

Hi Jon, this has always being a mystery to me. Is there a basis for this thinking? Don’t you believe those who have died on earth and now living in heaven can hear us? In the Apostles’ Creed, we profess the communion of saints. If we are not communicating, how is this communion of saints effected?

Examples.

In the transfiguration, Jesus was seen talking to Elijah and Moses. Moses died, Elijah probably didn’t. Definitely, the saints are alive and can speak and hear. Surely they can hear us and pray for us. We can’t be in communion with dead/non-speaking/non-hearing saints.

In the Rich Man and Lazarus, you see a conversation between the rich man and Abraham. If both were dead and incapable of communicating with each other, then Jesus would be teaching a false knowledge.

In the OT, even the medium of Endor managed to bring Samuel who has fallen asleep to talk to Saul.

If one were to say they couldn’t hear you because, well, heaven is so far away, then by this reasoning, all prayers must be within earshot to be effective which you know is nonsense because prayers can be silently prayed and it doesn’t leave out the mute and the deaf in the cold.

Hi Jon, this has always being a mystery to me. Is there a basis for this thinking? Don’t you believe those who have died on earth and now living in heaven can hear us? In the Apostles’ Creed, we profess the communion of saints. If we are not communicating, how is this communion of saints effected?

Examples.

In the transfiguration, Jesus was seen talking to Elijah and Moses. Moses died, Elijah probably didn’t. Definitely, the saints are alive and can speak and hear. Surely they can hear us and pray for us. We can’t be in communion with dead/non-speaking/non-hearing saints.

In the Rich Man and Lazarus, you see a conversation between the rich man and Abraham. If both were dead and incapable of communicating with each other, then Jesus would be teaching a false knowledge.

In the OT, even the medium of Endor managed to bring Samuel who has fallen asleep to talk to Saul.

If one were to say they couldn’t hear you because, well, heaven is so far away, then by this reasoning, all prayers must be within earshot to be effective which you know is nonsense because prayers can be silently prayed and it doesn’t leave out the mute and the deaf in the cold.
Hi Ericc,
You forgot to mention Luke 15:7 7 I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.

There seems evidence that they at least are aware of events on Earth.

Jon

 

[spina1953]

and the debate goes on --Christians believe that Scripture alone is our highest authority, but does that mean it is our only authority? What implications does that have for us when it comes to issues that Scripture doesn’t address? Pastor Mark Driscoll investigates the doctrine of Sola Scriptura

youtu.be/7tuK2WJUlFM

First, thank you for using the word “some” as a qualifier. For lurkers out there who might think “all” protestants…

Quote:
=ericc;11617548]Among some Protestants they didn’t like his “Faith without works is Dead” verse
There may be some, but I think more often it is James 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? , and 2:24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone., as they are seen in conflict with the Doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone. I don’t see either of them that way because James is speaking to Christians, and is intent on providing a guide on how to live in response to Grace
Quote:
and sometimes they don’t like James 5:16 too as it support Catholic sacrament of Confession. Protestants apparently don’t like to confess their sins to one another, only to God, although God told them to.
I think many of those you speak of understand confessing to one another as meaning to the ones you have sinned against, or to the whole congregation. They simply don’t believe in confession to a priest, missing the point of binding and loosing. Not all protestants take that stand, including Lutherans who practice corporate and private confession to a pastor/confessor

Quote:
They don’t like Catholics to pray for one another too, especially the ones living in heaven. I can never figure out why not as those in heaven are proven to be righteous and the prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects.
It isn’t that they don’t believe in praying for each other. It is just that they don’t believe those who have died can hear our prayers. Lutherans make no comment on that, except to say that scripture gives no command, example, or promise regarding invocation of the saints. We do believe they pray for us, however.

Quote:
Seems like a great resource not utilized and miss the chance to network with the rich and famous (in spirit). Isn’t it nice when you turn up there and you have tons of friends waiting for you there? Pity.
I think you make a good point here, as it seems many Catholics receive great peace from the practice.

Jon

---

It would be easy to fill many pages with the declarations of the Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, and of her great theologians, who, without a dissenting voice, repudiate this doctrine [consubstantiation]…
And no is stating Clement is making a declaration for infallibility. Universal jurisdiction is one thing and infallibility is another. You are getting your wires mixed up and the results usually are bad.
I know the difference, and the sentence I wrote doesn’t confuse them. It simply states that Clement does not seem to be acting as a Pope; at least not as the 21st century Roman Church would understand the “developed” sense of that office.

Default Re: Sola Scriptura…

Hi Jon, this has always being a mystery to me. Is there a basis for this thinking? Don’t you believe those who have died on earth and now living in heaven can hear us? In the Apostles’ Creed, we profess the communion of saints. If we are not communicating, how is this communion of saints effected?

Examples.

In the transfiguration, Jesus was seen talking to Elijah and Moses. Moses died, Elijah probably didn’t. Definitely, the saints are alive and can speak and hear. Surely they can hear us and pray for us. We can’t be in communion with dead/non-speaking/non-hearing saints.

In the Rich Man and Lazarus, you see a conversation between the rich man and Abraham. If both were dead and incapable of communicating with each other, then Jesus would be teaching a false knowledge.

In the OT, even the medium of Endor managed to bring Samuel who has fallen asleep to talk to Saul.

If one were to say they couldn’t hear you because, well, heaven is so far away, then by this reasoning, all prayers must be within earshot to be effective which you know is nonsense because prayers can be silently prayed and it doesn’t leave out the mute and the deaf in the cold.

Hi Jon, this has always being a mystery to me. Is there a basis for this thinking? Don’t you believe those who have died on earth and now living in heaven can hear us? In the Apostles’ Creed, we profess the communion of saints. If we are not communicating, how is this communion of saints effected?

Examples.

In the transfiguration, Jesus was seen talking to Elijah and Moses. Moses died, Elijah probably didn’t. Definitely, the saints are alive and can speak and hear. Surely they can hear us and pray for us. We can’t be in communion with dead/non-speaking/non-hearing saints.

In the Rich Man and Lazarus, you see a conversation between the rich man and Abraham. If both were dead and incapable of communicating with each other, then Jesus would be teaching a false knowledge.

In the OT, even the medium of Endor managed to bring Samuel who has fallen asleep to talk to Saul.

If one were to say they couldn’t hear you because, well, heaven is so far away, then by this reasoning, all prayers must be within earshot to be effective which you know is nonsense because prayers can be silently prayed and it doesn’t leave out the mute and the deaf in the cold.
Hi Ericc,
You forgot to mention Luke 15:7 7 I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.

There seems evidence that they at least are aware of events on Earth.

Jon

Great first post!

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

Luther was not able to attend Trent, and the other Reformers feared for their lives if they went………I haven’t refuted the share in the responsibility that the Reformers hold. The fact is they were in fear of their safety.

I am not aware of any specific threat that was ever made against Luther’s life. Of course, there was a ban on him from the Empire, but I am not aware of ANY recorded attempt or threat on his life. If you are I would like to see the details. As for the Reformers being afraid for their lives – are you saying that that is why they didn’t attend the Council? Again, if you have any specific information that backs up your statement, I would like to see it.

You think this is really important?

Yes I do. We are both interested in our two communions making real progress towards a real union. However, if we duck the important questions (not to mention the hypothetical ones), I can assure you that we are NEVER going to make any headway. Reluctance to answer questions is exactly why Papal Infallibility has never been addressed by the Catholic/Lutheran dialogue.

How about I leave it in the hands of those who actually would have the say in the matter, were it to come to that.

Jon, this is a discussion in which Christians openly share their viewpoints and opinions. I’m not asking you for a decision that is binding upon our denomination. I am simply asking for your personal opinion about what would be a fair apportionment of the 100 votes. After all, you are always telling me how everybody has the right to their opinion. All I am doing here is asking for yours. That being said, I will (again) repost my scenario and respectfully ask you to give me specific numerical answers to the apportionment questions. Again, my old hypothetical scenario is in blue.

OK, so you say that you think an Ecumenical Council is a good idea and that you would follow the decisions of such a council. Now though, we get down to the details and the specifics, which are never a strong suit for Protestants. The question now is how to apportion the votes. Again, say that there are 100 votes and let’s say that the only way to achieve a final decision is to have the majority rule, after praying to the Holy Spirit to provide guidance such that a “Holy Decision” is reached. So Jon, how many votes should go to each of the various factions? A numerical answer is necessary of course.

RCC - __________ Votes; EOC - __________ Votes; Lutherans - ______Votes; Non-Lutheran Protestants ________Votes

Please fill in the blanks such the total is 100. BTW, nobody is allowed to pick up their ball and leave when they see that the trend of the Council is going against their position.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[commenter]

This is a good thread, but let’s try not to get into personal innuendos or arguing against intentions, the motivations, or other aspects of the poster who disagrees with you. One object of this thread, and every other activity, is to try to get ourselves, and others, into Heaven. Focus on the topics at hand, not poking for mistakes in how the other person worded something. Tell us something we don’t know, in love.

Having said that, if any sob tries to reinterpret or weasel around, twist, or torment any of MY precious rants, I’ll…

Commenter

Enlightening the Internet with Wisdom and Grace since 2011.

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;11647053]

Yes I do. We are both interested in our two communions making real progress towards a real union. However, if we duck the important questions (not to mention the hypothetical ones), I can assure you that we are NEVER going to make any headway. Reluctance to answer questions is exactly why Papal Infallibility has never been addressed by the Catholic/Lutheran dialogue.

I would contend to you that our communions are not ducking the important questions. I think it prudent on our parts as laity that we trust that aspect to our leaders.
On a lay level, however, real union will require, first, real charity in how we dialogue. We can disagree without being disagreeable. We can challenge without be offensive. And, we need to recognize that each communion has strong fondness for its leaders, past and present. Open attacks on these individuals tend to drive wedges, and wedges make unity more difficult. The discussion should be on doctrine, not personalities.

Jon, this is a discussion in which Christians openly share their viewpoints and opinions. I’m not asking you for a decision that is binding upon our denomination. I am simply asking for your personal opinion about what would be a fair apportionment of the 100 votes. After all, you are always telling me how everybody has the right to their opinion. All I am doing here is asking for yours. That being said, I will (again) repost my scenario and respectfully ask you to give me specific numerical answers to the apportionment questions. Again, my old hypothetical scenario is in blue.

A right to an opinion is not an obligation to share one, as you know. That being said, for the sake of your hypothetical, I will accept your numbers.

Jon

 

[crochet_lady]

spina 1953

Thanks for including the link for John Driscoll – his presentation was Great. Totally agree.

Referring to comments made by ‘youbigdummy’ – please don’t try to ‘talk’ for all protestants as to what they do or don’t believe in or do. I was just re-reading your comment – apparently you were referring to yet Another comment. It gets confusing.
Among other things you commented about Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac as God gave him directions to do. God had promised that Abraham Would have descendents through his natural son. Isaac Was that natural son. Abraham Believed God / one way or another God Would carry through with His promise – He Would provide either by saving his son at the last minute / which He did / or After being willing to Give his son Back to God - that God would raise his only son back to life.
The ‘works’ / faith ‘issue’ / God’s grace – Yes, James was speaking to Christians. Our ‘faith’ is seen By / Through our daily lives (works). And God Does have ‘work’ for Christians during their lives. A born-again believer who is willing to be a ‘couch potato’ - just Waiting for some ‘opportunity to come knocking’ – well – isn’t showing much Fruit of his salvation. Because the Holy Spirit Does give a person a desire to share Christ with others. It’s a ‘natural’ response.

And - Biblically – believers Are to try to mend any rift that arises amongst them. When a problem arises between me and a fellow believer. I need to approach that person privately – with a loving spirit in an effort to clear up whatever the problem is. If the person refuses to listen and the problem would affect a particular group of believers – then take another person with you as a witness that you Are trying to clear up a problem. If the problem Does require a confession of ‘whatever’ / an apology / by all means Offer a sincere apology / confession of wrong doing. For the sake of restoring unity amongst the brethren. Sometimes that is enough and sometimes it Isn’t. Sometimes leaving the group Is necessary. So be it. And sometimes going in to talk with the Pastor and having that person pray with you. Or going to a friend and asking them to pray with you is fine. That’s what Christian friends are For. Emotional , spiritual support. But realizing that Jesus Christ is our mediator / high priest / to God. So - Biblically going to a priest / other than Jesus Christ Isn’t necessary.

And Why does Anyone need to pray for someone who’s Already In heaven. After all – they are in the perfect environment WITH God. They have their glorified body – what is there to pray for them About? Rereading the post – apparently it’s the idea of /talking with those who Are in heaven? Fellow shipping with your loved ones / friends who are already in heaven. Well – there are those who go to the grave sight of the dead relative to talk with them. They miss their mom or dad or child so they go to their grave. Well – to Some extent don’t we need to accept their Absence that is only temporary. ‘We’ are still here on earth to continue living a Godly life until God decides it’s time for Us to go to Him.

God Also tells us to Not go to Mediums who supposedly commune with the dead. And in the Old Testament – the witch / medium of Endor – they were Both shocked that it ‘worked’. Which suggested that ‘it’ wasn’t Meant to be ‘authentic’ but when it Worked – then ‘yikes, what happened’.

I realize that I’m getting in on a two-way conversation, but since it’s a public thread – I’m inserting my thoughts – if but for a moment.

 

[PRmerger]

spina 1953

Thanks for including the link for John Driscoll – his presentation was Great. Totally agree.

Referring to comments made by ‘youbigdummy’ – please don’t try to ‘talk’ for all protestants as to what they do or don’t believe in or do. I was just re-reading your comment – apparently you were referring to yet Another comment. It gets confusing.
Among other things you commented about Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac as God gave him directions to do. God had promised that Abraham Would have descendents through his natural son. Isaac Was that natural son. Abraham Believed God / one way or another God Would carry through with His promise – He Would provide either by saving his son at the last minute / which He did / or After being willing to Give his son Back to God - that God would raise his only son back to life.
The ‘works’ / faith ‘issue’ / God’s grace – Yes, James was speaking to Christians. Our ‘faith’ is seen By / Through our daily lives (works). And God Does have ‘work’ for Christians during their lives. A born-again believer who is willing to be a ‘couch potato’ - just Waiting for some ‘opportunity to come knocking’ – well – isn’t showing much Fruit of his salvation. Because the Holy Spirit Does give a person a desire to share Christ with others. It’s a ‘natural’ response.

The above is very Catholic!

And - Biblically – believers Are to try to mend any rift that arises amongst them. When a problem arises between me and a fellow believer. I need to approach that person privately – with a loving spirit in an effort to clear up whatever the problem is. If the person refuses to listen and the problem would affect a particular group of believers – then take another person with you as a witness that you Are trying to clear up a problem. If the problem Does require a confession of ‘whatever’ / an apology / by all means Offer a sincere apology / confession of wrong doing. For the sake of restoring unity amongst the brethren. Sometimes that is enough and sometimes it Isn’t. Sometimes leaving the group Is necessary. So be it. And sometimes going in to talk with the Pastor and having that person pray with you. Or going to a friend and asking them to pray with you is fine. That’s what Christian friends are For. Emotional , spiritual support. But realizing that Jesus Christ is our mediator / high priest / to God.

This, too is very Catholic!

So - Biblically going to a priest / other than Jesus Christ Isn’t necessary.

Going to the Sacrament of Confession is indeed Biblical.

Jesus gave his disciples the power to forgive sins. And if they were given that power, then they are indeed “mediators”.

[BIBLEDRB]John 20:22-23[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[PRmerger]

And Why does Anyone need to pray for someone who’s Already In heaven. After all – they are in the perfect environment WITH God.

This is correct. No one who is in heaven needs us to pray for them.

Were you under the misapprehension that Catholics pray for someone who’s already in heaven?

God Also tells us to Not go to Mediums who supposedly commune with the dead. And in the Old Testament – the witch / medium of Endor – they were Both shocked that it ‘worked’. Which suggested that ‘it’ wasn’t Meant to be ‘authentic’ but when it Worked – then ‘yikes, what happened’.

This is very Catholic.

Catholics are forbidden to consort with a medium.

I realize that I’m getting in on a two-way conversation, but since it’s a public thread – I’m inserting my thoughts – if but for a moment.

No need to explain, crochet lady! This is a forum for discussion. As such, all members are invited to join in all discussions.

 

[nmgauss]

Catholics are forbidden to consort with a medium.

Isn’t a priest a medium?

 

[JonNC]

Isn’t a priest a medium?

In what sense?

Jon

 

[Traverse]

Some consider a priest a “mediator” but they’re certainly not mediums.

Mediums are those who speak to the dead. Thing psychics or clairvoyants. Priests certainly can’t do that. At least, not by nature of the office.

 

[rfournier103]

Or going to a friend and asking them to pray with you is fine. That’s what Christian friends are For. Emotional , spiritual support. But realizing that Jesus Christ is our mediator / high priest / to God. So - Biblically going to a priest / other than Jesus Christ Isn’t necessary.

God Also tells us to Not go to Mediums who supposedly commune with the dead. And in the Old Testament – the witch / medium of Endor – they were Both shocked that it ‘worked’. Which suggested that ‘it’ wasn’t Meant to be ‘authentic’ but when it Worked – then ‘yikes, what happened’.

Jesus gave his disciples the power to forgive sins. And if they were given that power, then they are indeed “mediators”.

[BIBLEDRB]John 20:22-23[/BIBLEDRB]

Isn’t a priest a medium?

In what sense?

Jon

Some consider a priest a “mediator” but they’re certainly not mediums.

Mediums are those who speak to the dead. Thing psychics or clairvoyants. Priests certainly can’t do that. At least, not by nature of the office.

The following was a post I made a nonth or so ago. I think It bears repeating…

James 5:14-16 says…

Is anyone among you sick? He should summon the presbyters of the church, and they should pray over him and anoint (him) with oil in the name of the Lord, and the prayer of faith will save the sick person, and the Lord will raise him up. If he has committed any sins, he will be forgiven. Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The fervent prayer of a righteous person is very powerful.

What is a “presbyter”? This is from www.dictionary.com/:

**pres·by·ter [prez-bi-ter, pres-] **

noun

1. (in the early Christian church) an **office bearer **who exercised teaching, priestly, and administrative functions.

1. (in hierarchical churches) a priest.

1. an elder in a Presbyterian church.

Bolded added in the Bible passage and definition.

This shows a post-Resurrection case of sin-forgiveness AND the need for/allowance of a PRIESTHOOD.

One thing the above passage does NOT say is that anyone who is sick should pray ALONE. Can a layman administer this Sacrament? No. It requires a priest.

The problem with Christians is that we all interpret Scripture differently. Very sad.

There are those out there who reject 2,000 years of Catholic theology in favor of theology concocted a few hundred years ago (mind you, we ALL have access to the same source materials); or get their interpretations from someone who might have started his church/ministry out of his dad’s garage (or something like that)…

I own a Bible, and I know how to read; so therefore I COULD start my own non-denominational “church” and preach on Sunday, couldn’t I? I could rent a hall for a few hours on Sunday, read whatever passages I felt like, and then give anyone nice enough to show up my opinion of what I just read to them.

Too bad this doesn’t jive with Scripture…

If I am not mistaken; doesn’t **1 Peter 1:20-21 **say… **Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God. **

**Acts 8:27-31 **also says… So he got up and set out. Now there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of the Candace, that is, the queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of her entire treasury, who had come to Jerusalem to worship, and was returning home. Seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah. The Spirit said to Philip, “Go and join up with that chariot.” Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?” He replied, “How can I, unless someone instructs me?” So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him.

Bold added.

So… are we ALL qualified to preach on Sunday and interpret Scripture? If we are ALL guided by the Holy Spirit, why do some Christians interpret differently than others? Has Mr. Jones at the Main Street Bible Chapel spent years at the seminary? Has he studied Scripture the same way as Fr. Jones at St. Cletus Parish has?

My guess is NO.

Peace

Now I will add to that post…

Revelation 8:3-4 says… Another angel came and stood at the altar, holding a gold censer. He was given a great quantity of incense to offer, along with the prayers of all the holy ones, on the gold altar that was before the throne. The smoke of the incense along with the prayers of the holy ones went up before God from the hand of the angel.

This is a clear Biblical case of prayers being brought to God by someone other than the petitioner.

Not convinced?

How about Revelation 5:8… When he took it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each of the elders held a harp and gold bowls filled with incense, which are the prayers of the holy ones.

 

[PRmerger]

Isn’t a priest a medium?

 

[spina1953]

In reading and responding to some of the posts, one thing that I have noticed about this whole sola scriptura and it meaning that the Bible is the sol authority that one is to follow, how come the protestants who are believers in sola scriptura do not worship the Sabbath since it clearly says that we are to keep the Sabbath day holy? Also it seems to me that tradition is thought of as a man made thing so why do you worship on Sunday? I ask this because it is from the Catholic Church that we worship the Lord’s day on Sunday. The tradition of the Catholic Church is that we do not celebrate the Sabbath on Sunday we celebrate the Lord’s day which the Sabbath points to. So if the Bible is the sol authority then why do you follow the Catholic Tradition to worship on Sunday rather than keeping the Sabbath holy as the Bible commands?

 

[PRmerger]

In reading and responding to some of the posts, one thing that I have noticed about this whole sola scriptura and it meaning that the Bible is the sol authority that one is to follow, how come the protestants who are believers in sola scriptura do not worship the Sabbath since it clearly says that we are to keep the Sabbath day holy? Also it seems to me that tradition is thought of as a man made thing so why do you worship on Sunday? I ask this because it is from the Catholic Church that we worship the Lord’s day on Sunday. The tradition of the Catholic Church is that we do not celebrate the Sabbath on Sunday we celebrate the Lord’s day which the Sabbath points to. So if the Bible is the sol authority then why do you follow the Catholic Tradition to worship on Sunday rather than keeping the Sabbath holy as the Bible commands?

Exactly! An incontrovertible point.

SS advocates must worship on the Sabbath.

If one defers to the authority of the CC’s Sacred Tradition, one worships on Sunday.

 

[spina1953]

Exactly! An incontrovertible point.

SS advocates must worship on the Sabbath.

If one defers to the authority of the CC’s Sacred Tradition, one worships on Sunday.

PRmerger: Thanks for you support. I try to understand the question and respond in a Catholic understanding of it. This so that those who do not know, will know the truth of it. again thanks.

 

[PRmerger]

PRmerger: Thanks for you support. I try to understand the question and respond in a Catholic understanding of it. This so that those who do not know, will know the truth of it. again thanks.