Results 1 - 7 of 7
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Why do they prey for the deads salvation | 1 Cor 3:15 | DocTrinsograce | 143299 | ||
Hi, Heyyou79... welcome to the forum. The practice of prayer for the dead is based on 2 Maccabees 12:45-46. The books of Maccabees are one of a number of books included in what is called the apocrypha. Apocryphal books are not considered canonical, and therefore unsuitable for deriving doctrine. (Roman Catholics added the apocryphal books to their canon thirty years after -- and in reaction to -- the rise of Protestantism. Martin Luther questioned the Biblical efficacy of this doctrine in his 95 theses. Since this and other practices with which Luther took issue, brought a great deal of wealth to Rome, the backlash was severe.) Baptist theology, generally having its roots in Protestantism, does not embrace this practice. In Him, Doc PS Here are the theses of Luther most directly pertaining to the practice of prayer for the dead: 13. The dying are freed by death from all penalties; they are already dead to canonical rules, and have a right to be released from them. 14. The imperfect health (of soul), that is to say, the imperfect love, of the dying brings with it, of necessity, great fear; and the smaller the love, the greater is the fear. 15. This fear and horror is sufficient of itself alone (to say nothing of other things) to constitute the penalty of purgatory, since it is very near to the horror of despair. 16. Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem to differ as do despair, almost-despair, and the assurance of safety. 17. With souls in purgatory it seems necessary that horror should grow less and love increase. 18. It seems unproved, either by reason or Scripture, that they are outside the state of merit, that is to say, of increasing love. 19. Again, it seems unproved that they, or at least that all of them, are certain or assured of their own blessedness, though we may be quite certain of it. 20. Therefore by "full remission of all penalties" the pope means not actually "of all," but only of those imposed by himself. 21. Therefore those preachers of indulgences are in error, who say that by the pope's indulgences a man is freed from every penalty, and saved; 22. Whereas he remits to souls in purgatory no penalty which, according to the canons, they would have had to pay in this life. 23. If it is at all possible to grant to any one the remission of all penalties whatsoever, it is certain that this remission can be granted only to the most perfect, that is, to the very fewest. 24. It must needs be, therefore, that the greater part of the people are deceived by that indiscriminate and highsounding promise of release from penalty. 25. The power which the pope has, in a general way, over purgatory, is just like the power which any bishop or curate has, in a special way, within his own diocese or parish. 26. The pope does well when he grants remission to souls (in purgatory), not by the power of the keys (which he does not possess), but by way of intercession. 27. They preach man who say that so soon as the penny jingles into the money-box, the soul flies out (of purgatory). 28. It is certain that when the penny jingles into the money-box, gain and avarice can be increased, but the result of the intercession of the Church is in the power of God alone. 29. Who knows whether all the souls in purgatory wish to be bought out of it, as in the legend of Sts. Severinus and Paschal. 30. No one is sure that his own contrition is sincere; much less that he has attained full remission. 31. Rare as is the man that is truly penitent, so rare is also the man who truly buys indulgences, i.e., such men are most rare. 32. They will be condemned eternally, together with their teachers, who believe themselves sure of their salvation because they have letters of pardon. 33. Men must be on their guard against those who say that the pope's pardons are that inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to Him; 34. For these "graces of pardon" concern only the penalties of sacramental satisfaction, and these are appointed by man. 35. They preach no Christian doctrine who teach that contrition is not necessary in those who intend to buy souls out of purgatory or to buy confessionalia. 36. Every truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of penalty and guilt, even without letters of pardon. |
||||||
2 | Why do they prey for the deads salvation | 1 Cor 3:15 | flinkywood | 143311 | ||
Doc, you wrote: "Roman Catholics added the apocryphal books to their canon thirty years after -- and in reaction to -- the rise of Protestantism." 1) What books constituted the Pre-Protestant Catholic bible? 2) Why were the Apocrypha added in reaction to Protestanism? 3) What was the lay-Catholic reaction to these additions? Colin |
||||||
3 | Why do they prey for the deads salvation | 1 Cor 3:15 | DocTrinsograce | 143314 | ||
Hi, Colin... The 66 books of the bible we are familiar with were considered canonical. Protestantism didn't really change the attitude toward the Apocryphal books, they were generally viewed the same way by everyone. Three things marked a change for the Protestants: (1) the belief that sound doctrine could not be derived from any but the 66, and (2) the belief that everyone should and ought to study the bible for themselves, and (3) the invention of the printing press. With the printing press, inexpensive bibles became available. Every Protestants wanted a copy. They were all wanting to know what God had for them to believe. But 87 books was a lot heftier than the 66 in which they were really interested. So they started carrying around just the 66. (The first King James edition of the bible, however, included the Apocrypha.) It wasn't considered that the Apocryphal books were bad, per se. Just that they weren't any more inspired than other books written by mere men. However, the boom in the printing industry was a bane to Rome. Some of the practices (as has been noted in other posts) that brought a lot of money to Rome were at stake, and needed bolstering. Furthermore, Rome needed a basis by which to excommunicate those who were, in their eyes, heretics. The adoption of the Apocryphal books into the canon accomplished both things in one fell blow. At the time, I don't think it meant a great deal to the average lay-Catholic. In fact, the council of Trent was held between 1545 and 1663. It took so many sessions because they could barely get enough interest from the clergy to have what we would think of as a quorum. This makes me think they were having a hard time drumming up interest. Until this time, councils issued fairly short statements. This one was pretty voluminous since it had to conclusively deal with the canon issue, refute the five solas on which Protestantism was based, and re-institute few other Roman practices, nailing the lid to the heretics' coffins -- or, perhaps, hammering the necessary stakes into ground. (In the same period, the Jesuit order was founded to implement the objectives of Rome in the eradication of Protestantism.) It is interesting to read these documents. You can go to the Roman Catholic web site and read English copies of them. (Curiously, they seem to be the oldest set of documents kept in the archive, last time I looked.) If you are Protestant -- even Eastern Orthodox -- you can read the grounds on which you are officially anathematized by Rome. (I sure hope I never become anathematized by Pflugerville, Texas! That would be *really* scary!) I hope this little excursion into history helps. In Him, Doc |
||||||
4 | Why do they prey for the deads salvation | 1 Cor 3:15 | flinkywood | 143327 | ||
Doc, If the apocrypha had always been considered canonical by everyone, as you say, then who decided to excise these books from the holy word of God? By whose authority were they cut out? And if these books weren’t considered “bad, per se” or “any more inspired than other books written by mere men”, then they were equally as inspired as the others and removing them was a sin. Could this apparent crime really have boiled down to 87 books being “heftier” than 66? What an incredible rationale! Imagine the Supreme Court lopping off an amendment to the Constitution for this reason. Orwell himself could never have imagined it! This particular history is sounds impossible to me. Where did you read this? Colin |
||||||
5 | Why do they prey for the deads salvation | 1 Cor 3:15 | DocTrinsograce | 143352 | ||
Dear Colin, I didn't say that "the Apocrypha had always been considered canonical by everyone." (At least, I can't find where I did... and if I did, it was a typo.) Quite the contrary. (There is ample evidence for this and I'll dig it up if you insist.) Regarding your statement that "removing them (the Apocrypha) was a sin:" I would say that if they were never even added no sin was committed. Considering their source, adding them, however, WAS and is a sin (Proverbs 30:5-6, Matthew 15:7-9, 1 Timothy 6:3-5, Revelation 22:18). Let's see... you want a bibliography... The Catholic Encyclopedia gives the purposes and history of the Council of Trent (with its own spin, of course). You can go see the public records of the Council of Trent itself. (Are you going to make me dig around in them again for specifics? Its been a while. But all the silly high sounding, self important, pomp and circumstance are not fun to wade through.) You can narrow it down to the fourth session, I believe, if you want the Apocrypha stuff. The invention of the printing press and the practice of of how Protestants used their bibles can be founnd in history books just about anywhere. The Protestant attitude toward the Apocrypha and Pseudopygraphal is also well documented in their various confessions. For example the confession of the Baptists (1689) states, "The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon or rule of the Scripture, and, therefore, are of no authority to the church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved or made use of than other human writings. (Luke 24:27, 44, Romans 3:2)" Which was adopted from the Westminster Confession (1646). The same sentiments are affirmed in the Heidelberg Confession (1618). The Belgic Confession puts it this way, "The church may certainly read these books and learn from them as far as they agree with the canonical books. But they do not have such power and virtue that one could confirm from their testimony any point of faith or of the Christian religion. Much less can they detract from the authority of the other holy books." And the Thirty-Nine Articles (1571) states, " And the other bookes, (as Hierome sayeth), the Churche doth reade for example of life and instruction of manners: but yet doth it not applie them to establish any doctrene [sic]." You'll have to be specific about other things with which you take issue. (Sorry, I've still got a fever and I'm supposed to be studying for a midterm on Monday.) History is full of impossible sounding things, Colin. God is a God of truth. It should not amaze us when He takes specific steps to insure the preservation of His revealed Word. In Him, Doc |
||||||
6 | Why do they prey for the deads salvation | 1 Cor 3:15 | MJH | 143394 | ||
Regarding your statement that "removing them (the Apocrypha) was a sin:" I would say that if they were never even added no sin was committed. Considering their source, adding them, however, WAS and is a sin (Proverbs 30:5-6, Matthew 15:7-9, 1 Timothy 6:3-5, Revelation 22:18). I know, you had a fever; but it bugs me when people use scripture to make a point that the scripture they are quoting doesn’t make. Taking them 1 at a time. Proverbs 30:5-6 This is speaking about the Torah, or the first 5 books of the Bible. Some might argue (wrongly) that this statement also refers to prophetic words spoken by God to prophets after Moses but before Solomon. Then others have the strange idea to apply this to post Solomon times. The statement can not apply to post Solomon for several reasons the most important being that if it did, then all post Solomon books would be non-Biblical (“do not add to his words”). (The words: “Every word of God proofs true” is universal of course.) Matt 15:7-9: This statement is clearly speaking about the Oral Torah (Law). Here Jesus is stating that these so called Oral Laws were not from the Torah as the teachers of the Torah taught, but actually from men. Jesus spent much of His time teaching the correct interpretation of the Torah and the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures. Again, these can not make your point about the Apocrypha books which were before Jesus time. He isn’t even speaking of written texts, but of oral laws. 1 Timothy 6:3-4: This one is obviously not a refutation of the Apocrypha books. Rev 22:18-19: Here we have two things: 1) is this statement about the book of Revelation? or the whole Bible? If just Revelation, then why is the word translated into English as “book” and not “letter?”; if he means whole Bible, then why does he mention this in a letter to the churches. I assume he wasn’t attaching the whole Bible to the letter. The best understanding is to say the words apply to the book or letter of Revelation. However; other Bible passages make it clear that God’s Word isn’t to be changed (texts that usually refer to the Torah (first 5 books) but can be extrapolated to the whole accepted Bible, but still doesn’t answer the Apocrypha question.) 2) This text was written WAY after the Apocrypha, so even if it refers to the whole Bible, the Apocrypha was written before, not after John’s letter. There is no way one can use scripture to disprove or prove the Apocrypha EXCEPT when the books in the Apocrypha contradict accepted scripture, which many do. I am not a scholar of the Apocrypha, but I do know that many books add to our understanding of the Jews and the times. They were known by the apostles and Jesus and the general public. The Jews celebrated, the holiday instituted in Maccabees (Festival of Lights or Hanukah) which Jesus also celebrated and called Himself the Light of the World during the festival. All this and still I agree that the Apocrypha are not to be accepted as authoritative God given scripture. Studying for a mid-term? Seems to me after reading your many posts you ought to be giving the mid-term. God Bless MJH |
||||||
7 | Why do they prey for the deads salvation | 1 Cor 3:15 | DocTrinsograce | 143398 | ||
Dear brother/sister MJH, I've enjoyed your posts in the past. I particularly appreciate how you help us to understand the historical context of the practices and events we see in Scripture. I'll try to explain some of my reasoning for you. Please read between the lines, here. There is a lot of reasons between one concept and another that could (and probably should) be included... but this flu... yuck! Please forgive me! Besides, I'm doing this when I should be studying! ;-) Although the story of God's redemption of man is a progressive revelation, I believe it is axiomatic that anything that can be said of God at one moment in time is true of Him in another. I also believe that the entire words of Scripture are the words of God. The word of God is eternal. Obviously any given human writer in scripture would not have been aware of revelations after his own time. However, it is not inappropriate to accept their meaning as applying to a broader context. There are many examples of this use of scripture in scripture. Please don't misunderstand -- your warnings about beginning with an understanding of what the individual author actual meant at the time of writing is very good! (I think I even wrote recently, "Scripture means only what it was meant to mean at the time it was written.") However, what if the principles stated by the writer were meant by the Holy Spirit to apply in a broader context? What if they are universal statements. How would we know? In the example of the verses that I gave, all of them reflected the same warning: Human beings must not add to or change the Word of God. The word of God includes Torah, Christ and Apostle's Teachings, and the concluding book of the Bible (the order of the canon is not an accident). Actually, there may be more verses along these lines that I hadn't remembered. The important point is, though, that the same principle is repeated spanning different moments in redemptive history. God is trying to say something that is important. Now, I'm not coming up with something original here. The only originality I have is how inadequately I state things! :-) In fact, if I were coming up with some kind of novel way of thinking, that would be suspect in and of itself! All I've done is explain why I think these verse can be applied this way. These verses have been used for a long time to demonstrate this concept, and by men -- past and present -- far wiser and knowledgeable than I! Anyway... I'd better sign off. *whew* I feel rotten. :-p Sorry if I haven't been very clear. In Him, Doc |
||||||