Evidence for God from Science

So then what kind of evidence do you have against baptism of infants? Scripture does not hold all there is to know.

Fortigurn wrote:

Veronica wrote:

SUGAAAAA wrote:The only thing really have an issue with (although not a big one) is infant baptism. isnt this unbiblical? and how come infants are never baptized in the NT?

On the contrary, keep in mind that entire households were baptized, this would include infants. (Acts 2:38-39; Acts 16:15; Acts 16:33; Acts 18:8; 1 Corinthians 1:16)

Assumption.

I know this is off topic but I just found it ironic that the above was Fortigurn's 666th post.

That's how it looked wrote:
Fortigurn

Joined: 12 Oct 2005
Posts: 666

(just messin' with you man, don't take it seriously).

bizzt wrote:

Byblos wrote:
I know. No need to explain your motives and you can ask any question that's on your mind. I do realize the difficulty with which non-Catholics view our practices. But just know one thing, they are all, all of them related to Jesus Christ one way or the other. The whole thing with Mary is centered on the fact that she is Jesus' mother and has a special relationship with him.

Is she not a heir as well?

Yes she is but we believe her destiny has been fulfilled and as such is able to help her children by interceding on their behalf with Christ. More on that later.

bizzt wrote:I do see what you mean that Mary has a special relationship to her Son! What I am trying to say is the Bible never tells us to Pray to the Saints to help us. Paul however tells us to have others pray for you. I know I know Catholics believe the Saints are of the Body Of Christ (which they are) and still can hear your Prayers even in Heaven!

Your own answer is as good as any. But again, I will expand on the saints as well later.

bizzt wrote:

What if you look at these prayers from the point of view that Jesus is God? Then the role of Mary to Jesus would not be a replacement for the mediator role of Jesus with God but in addition to it, as an intercessory role with her son on our behalf.

How can one be an intercessor if she has died and gone to Heaven? What Scriptures can you relate to us praying to Saints of the Past?

Jesus has died and gone to heaven and is the sole mediator between us and God. Mary and the saints have died and are in heaven with Christ and are intercessors between us and Jesus Christ.

bizzt wrote:

To say we pray to the saints and not to God is a gross misstatement. We most certainly do pray directly to God, to Jesus, to the Holy Spirit as the one true God. Our entire mass (done daily 300,000 times around the globe), including the most important part, the holy eucharist, is centered around Jesus Christ and no other. In addition to these prayers, however, we pray that Mary and the saints intercede with Christ on our behalf much the same way you ask your christian family to pray for you in your times of need. it is that simple.

That was not my intention. Again I guess I don't understand how one is asking the Dead (whether alive in Christ or not) to pray for them is Scriptural thats all... Please lend me a hand there Byblos

Heb 4:16 Let us therefore draw near with boldness unto the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy, and may find grace to help us in time of need.

Heb 7:25 Wherefore also he is able to save to the uttermost them that draw near unto God through him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

It would be my pleasure to provide some details. But first let me say that if the saints and Mary are alive in Christ then they are not dead. Also, we need to establish some ground rules so that you can appreciate where we as Catholics come from.

First, keep in mind that Catholics believe in not only the written scriptures but also in the oral scriptures or Traditions. As an example we offer the NT itself as a living proof of oral Traditions. The apostles did not preach from a book, they preached orally and people believed and were converted by the preached word with the help of the Holy Spirit, not the written word. I offer this not as a point of contention but rather to explain why certain things we believe are not found in written scriptures. The following link explains in detail Catholic objections to Sola Scriptura. I do not offer it to debate the issue, only to explain our position.

http://www.catholicapologetics.net/apolo_30.htm#1

Second, we will most definitely disagree on many interpretations of written scriptures and that's also ok. Again, I only offer them as examples of how we interpret certain scriptures rather than how everyone should be seeing them.

Given that, let us start with the basics, i.e. Jesus' establishment of a visible church on earth, and that is by appointing Peter to be the head of the church when he proclaimed Peter "You are Rock and on this rock I will build my Church." Here are two links that explain this in more detail, backed up by scripture:

http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb1.htm

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm#I

Peter was appointed the head of the church by Jesus and, in turn, Peter appointed others. I'm sure you are aware of the unbroken line of papal succession since then.

I posted the above to show what we believe to be the authority of the church in iterpreting scripture and issuing dogmas, including our relationships to Mary and the saints.

Now on to the business of praying to Mary and the saints.

Is intercessory prayer permissible in scripture? The answer is yes as clearly seen in

1 Timothy 2:1-4 wrote: 1I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— 2for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

Of course you might argue that this is meant for the living, not the dead and of course you would be right. Except we've already established that Mary and the saints are very much alive in heaven.

Then the question becomes, can they really hear us? And the answer would also be yes. I will quote a paragraph to explain that, then post the link that contains it as well as other points such the sole mediatorship of Christ, no contact with the dead, and so on.

Can They Hear Us?

One charge made against it is that the saints in heaven cannot even hear our prayers, making it useless to ask for their intercession. However, this is not true. As Scripture indicates, those in heaven are aware of the prayers of those on earth. This can be seen, for example, in Revelation 5:8, where John depicts the saints in heaven offering our prayers to God under the form of "golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints." But if the saints in heaven are offering our prayers to God, then they must be aware of our prayers. They are aware of our petitions and present them to God by interceding for us.

Some might try to argue that in this passage the prayers being offered were not addressed to the saints in heaven, but directly to God. Yet this argument would only strengthen the fact that those in heaven can hear our prayers, for then the saints would be aware of our prayers even when they are not directed to them!

In any event, it is clear from Revelation 5:8 that the saints in heaven do actively intercede for us. We are explicitly told by John that the incense they offer to God are the prayers of the saints. Prayers are not physical things and cannot be physically offered to God. Thus the saints in heaven are offering our prayers to God mentally. In other words, they are interceding

http://www.catholic.com/library/Praying ... Saints.asp

More here: http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/praying.htm

The bottom line is, to Catholics, asking Mary and the saints to pray for us is the exact equivalent of asking my mother and my brothers and sisters to pray for me. Absolutely no difference. If the argument is they are unnecessary because we can pray directly to Jesus then, by the same token, asking the living to pray for us is also unnecessary. We might as well not pray with or for anyone and not ask anyone to pray with or for us, living here or above. The practice in no way diminishes the role of Jesus Christ as the sole mediator between us and God. On the contrary, it enhances it. And like I said before, although in many instances it is not obvious, all these so-called rituals and practices are centered around Jesus Christ.

Slightly off-topic but extremely relevant to Catholics everywhere is the role of transsubstantiation and the holy eucharist. Along with Mary and the saints, it is by far the most misunderstood Catholic practice, yet it is so essential to our faith. The following link (posted first by someone on this site, please forgive me for forgetting who) explains the holy eucharist in great detail, backed up by a multitude of scripture. It goes so far as to explain the role Passover played in the crucifixion leading to 'It is finished' and what it means. If you are really interested in understanding a little bit more about Catholics then this is a must-read. It totally blew me away in how it fit together certain events before and leading up to Calvary. The read has the feel of an oral lecture rather than an article; that's because it was.

http://www.catholicapologetics.net/apolo_30.htm#1

I hope this de-mystifies our faith just a touch so that we are not viewed with skepticism when we profess to be Christian among non-Catholics (at least on this site) and that any topics related to Catholicism are not always posted in the 'Aberrant Christianity' forum.


Always in Christ,

Byblos.
.

Byblos,
To start off...do you believe that Mary was taken into Heaven in bodily form and has not died? If so, can you give me one site in scripture that would lead me to think this?

Also, where does God say that we can pray to them on our behalf? Interesting to note is that in most, if not all pagan religions, prayers to the dead, especially the dead 'holy ones' or 'saints' give special merit to those praying them. Isn't that what Catholics are doing when they pray to St. Christopher? Aren't they praying to a dead man? And even if you want to suggest that St. Christopher is alive in Heaven, where does the Bible command us or even hint to us that we should pray to him or anyone like him? Why pray to St. Christopher, when we can pray directly to Yahweh in the Name of the Messiah of Israel, in the power of the Holy Spirit? Mary, as blessed as she was, is dead. Just as John and Paul and Peter are. The God of Israel forbids us to pray to dead people, Apostles or anyone else. It is not only a gross sin but opens up the person to the spiritual forces of darkness:
'There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer or one who casts a spell, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. For whoever does these things is detestable to Yahweh'. (Deut. 18:10-12)
The cite lists those people who practice witchcraft, etc., and even though Catholics who pray 'to saints' might not see themselves in this position, praying to a dead person to help them in time of need is tantamount to 'calling up the dead'. How can it be anything else?

God bless[/quote]

Yeshua's follower wrote:Byblos,
To start off...do you believe that Mary was taken into Heaven in bodily form and has not died? If so, can you give me one site in scripture that would lead me to think this?

Yes and no. Yes I believe she was taken into heaven in bodily form (what we call the assumption) and no there isn't any inspired scripture to show it. What I can tell you is that many early christians did in fact believe in Mary's assumption. I can tell you that no one has ever claimed to posess Mary's relics and none were ever found. This was at a time when saints relics were well guarded. I can show you an uninspired quote from St. John Damascene that even the apostles believed her assumption to be true:

St. John Damascene wrote:St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.

Now you might argue that if it is not found in scripture then it must not be true and that's where we would differ as I stated earlier.

Yeshua's follower wrote:Also, where does God say that we can pray to them on our behalf? Interesting to note is that in most, if not all pagan religions, prayers to the dead, especially the dead 'holy ones' or 'saints' give special merit to those praying them. Isn't that what Catholics are doing when they pray to St. Christopher? Aren't they praying to a dead man? And even if you want to suggest that St. Christopher is alive in Heaven, where does the Bible command us or even hint to us that we should pray to him or anyone like him? Why pray to St. Christopher, when we can pray directly to Yahweh in the Name of the Messiah of Israel, in the power of the Holy Spirit? Mary, as blessed as she was, is dead. Just as John and Paul and Peter are. The God of Israel forbids us to pray to dead people, Apostles or anyone else. It is not only a gross sin but opens up the person to the spiritual forces of darkness:
'There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer or one who casts a spell, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. For whoever does these things is detestable to Yahweh'. (Deut. 18:10-12)
The cite lists those people who practice witchcraft, etc., and even though Catholics who pray 'to saints' might not see themselves in this position, praying to a dead person to help them in time of need is tantamount to 'calling up the dead'. How can it be anything else?

God bless

It is everything but that. Forgive me for saying this but it seems that your post is a knee-jerk reaction as it does not look like you read my post in its entirety (apologies if you did). The bible forbids necromancy but also does encourage intercessory prayers. First, let us make something perfectly clear, we do not pray to Mary and the saints in the sense that you think, i.e. in an act of worship. Like I said many times, our prayers are tantamount to asking our mother to pray for us. So then the question becomes are we practicing necromancy or are we asking for intercessory prayers when we ask Mary to pray for us? I firmly believe it is not necromancy for 2 reasons: 1, we're not holding seances in an effort to obtain information from the dead, and 2, we firmly believe Mary and the saints can hear us and, therefore are not dead, and if they are not dead then there's nothing unbiblical about it. Given all of that, I ask you again, how different is that from asking your family to pray for you? If you can do one why not the other? You may disagree but I see no difference.

Veronica wrote:So then what kind of evidence do you have against baptism of infants?

Romans 10 would be a good place to start.

Scripture does not hold all there is to know.

I see. And who told you that?

Fortigurn wrote:

Veronica wrote:So then what kind of evidence do you have against baptism of infants?

Romans 10 would be a good place to start.

Scripture does not hold all there is to know.

I see. And who told you that?

Scripture told us that.

Byblos wrote:Scripture told us that.

Where, specifically, are we told in Scripture that Scripture itself is insufficient to inform us of all we need to know?

Fortigurn wrote:

Byblos wrote:Scripture told us that.

Where, specifically, are we told in Scripture that Scripture itself is insufficient to inform us of all we need to know?

Well, let me answer it by a question. Where in scripture does it say that the word of God must be preached from a book? Nowhere. Christ established a church, he did not establish a book (a paraphrase from the following link). Apostles preached the word of God orally, not from a book. The entire NT is a perfect example of oral Traditions as it was not completed until many people have already been converted. The printing press wasn't invented until 14 centuries later. How did the multitude of masses convert? Through the preached word of God, not a book.

As examples of oral Traditions preached as the word of God check out Matt 2:23; 23:2; 1 Cor 10:4; 1 Pet 3:19; Jude 9, 14 15.

Here are more direct quotes:

Col1:23 wrote:"If so ye continue in the faith, grounded and settled, and immovable from the hope of the gospel which you HAVE HEARD, which is PREACHED (verbal teaching not written) in all the creation that is under heaven, where of I Paul am made a minister."

Rom 10:17,18 wrote:"Faith then cometh BY HEARING; AND HEARING by the word of Christ. But I say: Have they not HEARD? Yes, verily, THEIR SOUND hath gone forth into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the whole world."

The link:

http://www.catholicapologetics.net/apolo_30.htm#1

Conclusion: Scripture tells us that the word of God is to be preached orally. Since not all the preached words were written down (evidenced by most apostles not writing a single word) then the written word must be combined with oral Traditions for it to be complete.

I'm well aware many people will have a problem with this and I really do not wish to debate it as this is a well established Catholic doctrine. Again I offer it in an effort to explain our position however it differs from yours.

Byblos,

Can you explain this?

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#3

Just a few of the heretical Catholic Doctrines.

Jesus Christ did NOT establish the Catholic Church. Constantine did. The Christian church was established with this warning.

Galatians 1:8
"But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed"

Roman Catholicism is clearly another gospel, much different than what Paul preached.

Byblos wrote:

Fortigurn wrote:

Byblos wrote:Scripture told us that.

Where, specifically, are we told in Scripture that Scripture itself is insufficient to inform us of all we need to know?

Well, let me answer it by a question. Where in scripture does it say that the word of God must be preached from a book? Nowhere. Christ established a church, he did not establish a book (a paraphrase from the following link). Apostles preached the word of God orally, not from a book. The entire NT is a perfect example of oral Traditions as it was not completed until many people have already been converted. The printing press wasn't invented until 14 centuries later. How did the multitude of masses convert? Through the preached word of God, not a book.

As examples of oral Traditions preached as the word of God check out Matt 2:23; 23:2; 1 Cor 10:4; 1 Pet 3:19; Jude 9, 14 15.

You are falsely equivocating between the gospel being preached before it was written down, and 'traditions' which were allegedly preached, but never written down.

Furthermore, it is clear that the gospel was in fact 'preached from a book' (more specifically, from scrolls', as the three synoptic gospels and Acts demonstrate.

puritan lad wrote:Byblos,

Can you explain this?

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#3

Just a few of the heretical Catholic Doctrines.

If you read them they are self-explanatory and backed up by scripture (both written and oral) and nothing heretical about them. Again, I really do not wish to debate this issue. I was merely offering it so that my position is clear that I'm using both written and oral Traditions, not just written scriptures that didn't come about until much later.

puritan lad wrote:Jesus Christ did NOT establish the Catholic Church. Constantine did.

This is not even a point of contention for non-Catholics. I'm surprised you say that when scripture proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

puritan lad wrote:The Christian church was established with this warning.

Galatians 1:8
"But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed"

And I do not disagree with this. But the preached Gospel is a combination of the written Gospel as well as the orally preached Gospel. That's the point you are failing to grasp. I provided ample evidence for that.

puritan lad wrote:Roman Catholicism is clearly another gospel, much different than what Paul preached.

I and countless others respectfully disagree.

Byblos wrote:

puritan lad wrote:Jesus Christ did NOT establish the Catholic Church. Constantine did.

This is not even a point of contention for non-Catholics. I'm surprised you say that when scripture proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Hmm. I'm game. Show me in the scriptures where Jesus Christ established the Roman Catholic Church. (and please don't try to feed me the "Peter was the first pope" nonsense.) While you are at it, explain why the Catholic "gospel" is totally different from the one Jesus preached.

Where did Jesus or any of the apostles mention purgatory?
Where did they mention indulgences?

Please provide direct scripture quotes.

puritan lad wrote:

Byblos wrote:

puritan lad wrote:Jesus Christ did NOT establish the Catholic Church. Constantine did.

This is not even a point of contention for non-Catholics. I'm surprised you say that when scripture proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Hmm. I'm game. Show me in the scriptures where Jesus Christ established the Roman Catholic Church. (and please don't try to feed me the "Peter was the first pope" nonsense.)

Exactly why I did not wish to debate the issue. First because it is off topic (which was the role of intercessory prayers by Mary and the saints, which again, I mentioned as a lead-up to my argument, not as a point of contention. And second, because you ask for scripture then you turn around and call it nonsense.

The only thing I will say (again) is this: Jesus established a visible church when he proclaimed Peter to be the rock and on this rock he will build his church. Of course it was not the Roman Catholic church back then but clearly the RCC is the direct decedent of the church Jesus established on earth.

SUGAAAAA wrote:The only thing really have an issue with (although not a big one) is infant baptism. isnt this unbiblical? and how come infants are never baptized in the NT?

Actually, the Reformed Protestants practice infant baptism as well. To summarize the case...

1.) There is no such thing as an "age of accountability". (Psalm 58:3)
2.) Salvation is not a requirement for the sacraments (unless Jesus was wrong in presenting the Lord's Supper to Judas). The sacraments are a sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace, not necessarily salvation.
3.) The Covenant promises are for believers and their children. (Acts 2:38-39).
4.) The Children of believers (or even one believer) are holy, whereas otherwise they would be unclean. (1 Cor. 7:14).

To suggest that "infants are never baptized in the NT" is presumptuous. For example, there were 3,000 baptized on the Day of Pentecost. Whose to say that all 3,000 were professing adults? In the NT, believers were baptized, along with their entire households.

There are no NT examples of "baby-dedication" services either. There are also no NT examples of women taking Communion.

We hold that the children of believers are heirs to the Covenant of Grace, and therefore should receive the sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace. This was circumcision in the OT (duly applied to 8-day old infants), and has been replaced by baptism (a NT form of circumcision) in the NT (Col. 2:11-12).

The biggest issues with Catholicism are the false teachings of Indulgences and Purgatory. These are NOT in the Bible, and are another gospel.

Hope this helps,

PL