Oh, now.... I'm not irritable!
:) Glad to hear it!
And the proofs are there -- it's Rome that twists it.
You do realize that you'll need to SHOW those proofs, and not simply make me accept it on your say-so?
And in a few lines, you fall prey to Rome's mistake by alleging that James indicates faith AND works. He doesn't. No proofs necessary. Those are facts.
I'm not sure of the passage to which you'd be referring; I'm referring mainly to James 2, in which he says clearly that: (a) faith without works cannot save, and (b) we are justified by works, and not by faith alone. Are you referring to these?
And facts are hard things sometimes.
I appreciate that truism... though I'd gently suggest that it's applicable to both sides of any discussion!
You just need to deal with it and READ the Bible for yourself!
I have, I assure you... many times over. That's how I found James 2:24, John 6, Colossians 1:24, Matthew 16:18 (and its parallel/typological precedent in Isaiah 22), 2 Maccabees, and a whole host of other Scriptures which never seem to get much play in Protestant sermons.
Ahhh -- and now the tired old canard is parroted again:
:) You do have a flair for the rhetorical...
[paladinan]
"Mediator" is anyone who intercedes ("bridges the middle") on behalf of someone else, yes? Every time you pray for someone, you're a mediator. Yes, Jesus is the Sole Mediator (1 Timothy 2:5)... in the sense that, without Him, none of our prayers would matter at all, and we could do nothign good (and we wouldn't exist, anyway). But for anyone to assume that this excludes all SUBORDINATE mediators is to fail to understand the meaning of the word.
[HossB86]
Mary cannot and does not intercede for anyone. She is not omniscient.
(?!) Pardon? Why do you say that omniscience is required in order to intercede for someone? Neither logic nor Scripture say anything of the sort.
She was a sinner in need of a Savior, as are we all.
She was in need of a savior; but she was not a sinner.
Now then. You need to provide a little clarification because in one fell swoop, you've contradicted yourself.
We'll see.
You just said: "Yes, Jesus is the Sole Mediator (1 Timothy 2:5)...." and actually managed to quote the correct scripture that supports that fact. Yet, you say: "But for anyone to assume that this excludes all SUBORDINATE mediators is to fail to understand the meaning of the word."
Right.
I think you actually have failed to understand the meaning of one particular word -- "Sole" in Sole Mediator. You cannot have a "sole" anything with subordinate somethings underneath it. It's either sole, or it's not sole. You said Jesus is the "sole" mediator. So does scripture. Yet, you said then in the next sentence that he isn't the sole mediator. Which is it?
I can explain it best by comparison:
"And the scribes and the Pharisees began to question, saying, 'Who is this that speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God only?'" (Luke 5:21)
"Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you." And when he had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." (John 20:21-23)
Now, it's certainly true that only God can forgive sins, in general (i.e. not merely sins committed against us, personally--we can forgive those). But here we have Jesus saying that the Apostles have the authority to forgive (or to hold bound) sins... and that Heaven will ratify their decision. So... which is it? Is God the only One Who can forgive sins? Or can the Apostles do it, too?
The answer is, "both/and"... in the sense that only God forgives sins, but He's perfectly within His rights to forgive THROUGH the agency of his priests (mere mortal, sinful men). The authority is God's alone... but He freely chose (as John 20:21-23 makes crystal-clear) to exert that authority in cooperation with some of His children. No priest or bishop can forgive ANYTHING on his own; it's only God, forgiving through that sinful man, which makes the Sacrament of Confession effective. In short: the word "ONLY" must refer to the ULTIMATE source of authority for forgiveness... or else the text simply lies (which would be attributing a lie to the Holy Spirit WHo included it as Sacred Scripture).
As to your question: all mediation between God and man is done by Jesus alone... but Jesus Himself enacts that mediation through His Body, which is the Church. The extent to which we can mediate for one another is precisely the extent to which we are incorporated in the Body of Christ.
Now, let me ask you: what, exactly, do you think "mediation" *means*? Surely it has a definition? And surely the definition is knowable to us? When anyone prays to God on behalf of another, it would not behoove us to avoid the word "mediation" simply out of a fastidious caution about 1 Timothy 2:5, any more than it would, for example, behoove us never to call our male parent "father", simply out of a fastidious caution about Matthew 23:9 (especially since St. Paul, St. Stephen, and even Jesus Himself applied it to mere men--1 Corinthians 4:15, Acts 7:2, Luke 16:24ff, respectively), or any more than it would behoove us to assume that unborn babies are all sinners, simply out of a fastidiously exacting view of Romans 3:23. Some things which seem absolute, at first glance, are shown to be quite different, when given the proper context.
As for indulgences, I think it's pretty obvious though the history of Rome that indulgences were sold to build St. Peter's basilica, no?
Yes, and no. Indulgences can be gained when someone enacts a charitable work (one such work being monetary donations to build up St. Peter's Basilica), and some misguided priests (and/or other proclaimers of the indulgence) presented things in such a way that the laity thought the indulgences were being "sold". But again: I already told you that indulgences need to be judged on their TRUE nature, not on the abuses done WITH (or to) them.
But wait -- weren't they supposed to buy down the time souls spent in Purgatory?
Not "buy down"; indulgences, when gained, remit temporal punishment which would otherwise be expiated in Purgatory.
There is no purgatory.
Scripture, Sacred Traditon, and common sense all disagree with that.
If there were, why didn't Christ tell the thief on the cross, "Today, I'll be in Paradise. I'll see you when you've burned a bit."
Are you under the impression that, since Purgatory exists, then everyone must necessarily go through it? I'm not sure where you'd get that idea; the Church doesn't teach it... and it's the teachings of the Church which are being discussed, here. St. Dismas (the "good thief") apparently didn't need any expiation beyond his sincere act of love and trust, and his own terrible suffering on his own cross.
There is Heaven. There is Hell.
True, and true.
There is no purgatory.
You'll need to prove that assertion, if you want anyone else to see it as aught but your mere personal opinion.
1 Corinthians 3:12-15 -- another misquoted/misrepresented/misinterpreted canard -- this is referring to a person's works. Not their soul. It even says so.
It refers to a person's works being "burned up", but it also refers to a person "being saved, but only as through a fire". In other words: you have no basis for making this an "either/or" situation; the "fire" refers to both the works and the soul.
2 Maccabees 12:39-45 - looked it up and saw nothing about "Purgatory" - not even an allusion to it.
No?
So they all blessed the ways of the Lord, the righteous Judge, who reveals the things that are hidden; and they turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out. And the noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen. He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection. For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.
So... you don't find the idea of "praying for the dead, and making sin offerings in atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin" to be any reference to Purgatory? Those in hell cannot be delivered from their sin (and they would not benefit from our prayers or offerings), and those in Heaven have no need of such help, and those who are alive are not dead. So... what other option is there? No, the word "Purgatory" is not in the text (that's a title of convenience, anyway, just to call it SOMETHING), any more than the word "Trinity" is in the text (I've had loads of fund debates with Unitarians on that one!)... but it's not necessary, either.
As to your question: all mediation between God and man is done by Jesus alone... but Jesus Himself enacts that mediation through His Body, which is the Church. The extent to which we can mediate for one another is precisely the extent to which we are incorporated in the Body of Christ. Uh. No. There is one mediator between God and Man...
"5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man[a] Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time."
One mediator between God and Man. Mankind is part of the body of Christ (at least those who are saved by grace through faith) -- so those who are receiving mediation by Christ cannot extend mediation to another that Christ alone can give!
James 2 has been misquoted and twisted by Rome. Faith saves. Works are a result of faith. Again, let's visit the thief on the cross. What works had he done? He was being crucified to death for being a thief! I don't think that qualifies as what Rome considers "saving works." His FAITH saved him. Faith provided to him from above.
You just need to deal with it and READ the Bible for yourself!
I have, I assure you... many times over.
Well, you need to keep reading it over and over and over. And praying for the Holy Spirit to open your heart, eyes and mind to God's truth.
She was in need of a savior; but she was not a sinner.
Really? If she was sinless, she needed no savior. Only sinners need to be saved....how about Romans 3 --
"21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law."
Re-read that passage. Catch the part(s) about justification by faith apart from works of the law? That Christ is put forth as a propitiation by his blood for us to receive by faith? What about faith and works? If it's so essential, why is it that it doesn't appear every time faith is mentioned?
Because works don't save. They don't add to our salvation. Faith saves...
(?!) Pardon? Why do you say that omniscience is required in order to intercede for someone? Neither logic nor Scripture say anything of the sort.
Really?? How does Mary hear the prayer of millions of "faithful Catholics" every single day? Only God is capable of that! Logic nor scripture say anything of the sort about Mary being a mediatrix, sinless, assumed bodily to Heaven -- the Catholic Cult speaks of it in scripture's silence and calls it "Holy Tradition." But it's NOT scriptural. It's made out of whole cloth.
So... instead of all the other sturm and drang, explain how a sole mediator can have subordinate mediators? Explain how "one mediator between God and Man" becomes multiple mediators? Or even one other mediator in the person of a created sinner saved by grace named Mary? You're asking me to define mediator -- I asked you how you reconcile one vs. many? Define "one" -- and then try to explain in some tortured manner that "one" is not one but many....
Waiting...
Hoss