Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Three Things You're Probably Getting Wrong about Praying to the Saints
Shameless popery ^ | April 20, 2015

Posted on 04/20/2015 1:46:59 PM PDT by NYer

As Christianity Today acknowledges, prayers for and to the Saints date back to the early Church (in fact, these practices date back far earlier, even to Old Testament Judaism, but I'll talk more about that tomorrow). Nevertheless, these practices are controversial within Protestantism. Today, I want to look at just one of them -- prayer to the Saints -- and show why the opposition to it is grounded in a faulty view of life after death. Tomorrow, I'll look at the Biblical support for both prayer to the Saints and prayer for the Saints.

First, a word on why Protestants tend to object to prayer to the Saints. For some people, such prayers are sinful, since they think it gives glory to someone other than God, or that it's equivalent to “consulting the dead.” Others view it simply as impossible, since they think that the Saints can't hear us, or are unconcerned with what's going on here below. But almost all of these arguments are built upon the same three misconceptions about the souls of the Saints who have gone before us. Given this, let's present the Biblical view on each of these three major points:

Johann Michael Rottmayr, Intercession of Charles Borromeo supported by the Virgin Mary (1714)
1. The Saints in Heaven are Alive, not Dead.

The first mistake in opposing “prayers to the dead” is assuming that we're praying to “the dead.” One of the most frequently cited passages against prayer to the Saints in Heaven is Isaiah 8:19,
And when they say to you, “Consult the mediums and the wizards who chirp and mutter,” should not a people consult their God? Should they consult the dead on behalf of the living?
Those who oppose prayer to the Saints present a straightforward argument: the faithful departed are dead, and it's sinful to “consult the dead.”

But the first premise -- that the faithful departed are dead -- is false, and directly contrary to Scripture. Jesus actually denounces this view as Biblically ignorant (Mk. 12:24). He reveals the truth about the Saints when He says, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and whoever lives and believes in me shall never die” (John 11:25-26). And in response to the Sadduccees, He says (Mark 12:26-27):
And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God said to him, “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living; you are quite wrong.
So the Protestant view that says that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are “dead” is “quite wrong.”

Read the literature written against prayers to the Saints, and see how frequently they're mischaracterized as “the dead.” This isn't a harmless mistake. The passages warning against “the dead” simply don't apply to the question of the Saints. Indeed, a great many popular assumptions about the afterlife are built on the idea that verses like Psalm 115:17 (“The dead do not praise the LORD, nor do any that go down into the silence”) apply to the Saints in Heaven. They don't, and Christ tells us that they don't.

The Ladder of Divine Ascent (12th c. icon)
2. The Saints in Heaven are Witnesses, not Sleeping or Ignorant.

Related to the first mistake is the idea that the departed Saints are cut off from us on Earth, and that it's therefore immoral (or at least futile) to communicate with them. This belief takes two general forms: first that the souls of the just are “asleep” until the Resurrection; second, that the souls are isolated in Heaven.

First, soul sleep. The United Church of God argues against praying to “dead” saints:
In addition to all this, praying to dead saints today assumes the doctrine of the immortal soul, which many people are surprised to find is not taught in the Bible. The Bible teaches that death is like sleep that lasts until the resurrection at Jesus Christ's second coming (1 Thessalonians:4:13-16 ).
Now, United Church of God aren't mainstream Protestants by any stretch: they are Sabbatarians (meaning that they reject Sunday worship) and they reject the Trinity. But this notion of soul sleep can be traced to Martin Luther, who wrote:
For the Christian sleeps in death and in that way enters into life, but the godless departs from life and experiences death forever [...] Hence death is also called in the Scriptures a sleep. For just as he who falls asleep does not know how it happens, and he greets the morning when he awakes, so shall we suddenly arise on the last day, and never know how we entered and passed through death.
Even Luther's most militant supporters concede that he held some sort of confused and often-contradictory notion of “soul sleep.” So, too, did many of the Radical Reformers. In this view, the souls of the Saints aren't “conscious,” and so it would be futile to ask them for prayers.

The second camp rejects soul sleep, but thinks that the souls in Heaven are isolated from us. For example, the website “Just for Catholics” acknowledges that the first half of the Hail Mary comes directly from Scripture, but says that these Scriptures aren't permitted to be used as prayer:
Even though the first two sentences are taken from the Bible, it does not mean that it is right to use them as a prayer. Mary could hear the salutations of the Gabriel and Elizabeth because they spoke in her immediate presence. Now Mary is dead and her soul is in heaven. She cannot hear the prayers of thousands and thousands who constantly call upon her name. Only the all-knowing God can hear the prayers of His people.
But Scripture doesn't present the Saints in Heaven as isolated or spiritually asleep. Rather, even in their “rest,” they're presented as alert and aware of the goings-on of Earth (Revelation 6:9-11):
I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne; they cried out with a loud voice, “O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before thou wilt judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell upon the earth?” Then they were each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brethren should be complete, who were to be killed as they themselves had been.
Perhaps the clearest description of the relationship between the Saints in Heaven and the saints on Earth is in the Book of Hebrews. Chapter 11 is a litany of Saints who lived by faith, leading immediately into this (Heb. 12:1-2):
Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.
The spiritual life is compared to competing in a race, an image that Paul uses elsewhere (1 Corinthians 9:24-27; 2 Timothy 4:6-7). Here, the imagery is fleshed out to show that the Saints in Heaven are a great crowd of witnesses in the stands. Obviously, this idea of the heavenly Saints as “a crowd of witnesses” is incompatible with the idea that they're either asleep or unavailable to see us.

Matthias Gerung, John's Vision, from the Ottheinrich Bible (1531)
3. The Saints in Heaven are Still Part of the Church.

The Biblical depiction of the Saints as the heavenly witnesses in the grandstands of our spiritual race rebuts a third view: namely, that the Saints are enjoying God's company so much that they've stopped caring about us. For example, a Christian Post column on the subject seems to suggest that the Saints don't do anything for us once they're in Heaven:
So yes, they are not really dead. But that doesn't mean they hear our prayers, or provide even the slightest bit of assistance in answer to our prayers, regardless of how noble their lives may have been while on earth. God doesn't use saints in heaven to bless saints on earth. Instead, God utilizes His holy angels to minister to His children on earth. 
Such a view gets things entirely backwards. Rather, their holiness and their enjoyment of God means that they love us and care for us all the more. That's why they're witnesses to our spiritual race; that's why the martyrs in Heaven are still concerned with justice on Earth. The more we love God, the more we love our neighbor. And the Saints love God with a perfection impossible to us here below.

One way to think about this is to remember the shocking fact that the Saints are still part of the Church. The Bible describeds the Church as both the Body of Christ and the Bride of Christ. For example, St. Paul tells us that the Church is the Body of Christ (Colossians 1:18, 24), and the Body of Christ is the Church (Ephesians 5:23). The Saints aren't somehow cut off from Christ in Heaven, which is why we see the Holy Spirit presenting the Bride of Christ in Heaven (Revelation 21:9, 22:17). That membership in the Church helps to explain their heavenly intercession (1 Corinthians 12:24-26):
But God has so composed the body, giving the greater honor to the inferior part, that there may be no discord in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member of suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.
So both perfect Christian charity and our union in the Body of Christ help to account for why the Saints intercede for us. 

Conclusion

Scripture repeatedly calls for us to pray for one another (e.g., 1 Thessalonians 5:25; 2 Thes. 3:1; Colossians 4:3; Hebrews 13:18), to make “supplications for all the saints” (Ephesians 6:18), and for “supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings” to be made “for all men” (1 Timothy 2:1). Neither in praying for one another nor in asking one another for prayers do we risk offending God in the slightest. Quite the contrary: “This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:3-4).

The Catholic position simply applies these Scriptural teaching to the entire Body of Christ, while the standard Protestant position says that these teachings don't apply to the parts of the Church that are already in Heaven. The view goes awry in calling for us to ignore an entire portion of the Body of Christ: urging us not to pray for the faithful departed, and not to ask the Saints in glory to pray for us. Scripture calls for us to “have the same care for one another,” to suffer and triumph with the other parts of the Body. The Saints' glory is ours; our struggles are theirs. 

As you can see from the above post, many of the most popular arguments against praying to the Saints are based on false ideas about what happens to the souls of the just after death: thinking that the Saints are dead, or asleep, or isolated, or apathetic, or outside the Church. In fact, they're alive and before God, yet still connected to us, witnessing our triumphs, failures and struggles, all the while rooting for us and praying for us. 

With a correct view of the state of the glorified Saints and their role in the Church, most of the arguments against seeking their intercession simply dissolve. There's simply no good reason to cut the heavenly Saints off from the rest of the Body. You're surrounded by Heavenly witnesses who are supporting you in your spiritual race. What's more, they're your brothers and sisters in Christ. Given this, by all means, ask for their spiritual help and encouragement!


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Charismatic Christian; Evangelical Christian; Mainline Protestant; Other Christian; Prayer
KEYWORDS: prayer; prayerstosaints; praying; saints; venoration
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 661-680681-700701-720 ... 981-984 next last
To: Eucharista
>>he Church regards with esteem also the Muslims.<<

If the Catholic Church and Catholics can't discern the difference between the god of Muslims and the true God of scripture they will be shown come judgement day.

681 posted on 04/22/2015 6:41:33 AM PDT by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 473 | View Replies]

To: Eucharista
>>Is this a trick question or do you really believe that Salvation is a reward and not an unmerited gift?<<

No, that was not a trick question. Catholics give their saints and Mary attributes that will only be given upon the resurrection. So which is it? Have some been given those attributes prior to the resurrection?

682 posted on 04/22/2015 6:44:56 AM PDT by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 474 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear
No, I didn't. I said "The god that Muslims describe is NOT the God described in scripture." It's not my description, it's scripture. Big difference.

False; your quoted words are not scripture. "The God of Abraham" is in scripture, and even Laban knew of Him.

And Laban said to Jacob, Behold this heap, and behold this pillar, which I have cast betwixt me and thee: This heap be witness, and this pillar be witness, that I will not pass over this heap to thee, and that thou shalt not pass over this heap and this pillar unto me, for harm. The God of Abraham, and the God of Nahor, the God of their father, judge betwixt us. And Jacob sware by the fear of his father Isaac.
Genesis, Catholic chapter thirty one,
Protestant verses fifty one to fifty three,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

Don't be preposterous. If you can't distinguish between the God the Jews serve and the god that Muslims serve I would suggest there is a deeper problem with your discernment then can be dealt with here.

Thank you for answering that you believe the God of Abraham that the Jews serve is the one God, and that the God of Abraham the Moslems serve is not the one God. I note that both Judaism and Islam hold the God of Abraham is the only true God, and that the prophets in the Jewish Bible are true prophets of the God of Abraham. Both of them believe that the one true God gave his name to Moses, and that the correct pronunciation is shrouded in mystery until God reveals it again. Both of them categorically reject the Holy Trinity, the books of the New Testament, although Islam regards Jesus as a true prophet of the God of Abraham and introduced a false prophet as the last prophet of God (similar to Mormonism), while Judaism categorically rejects this view. Both religions reject your religion, whatever Protestant strain or derivative.

Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:
Romans, Catholic chapter three, Protestant verse twenty nine,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

683 posted on 04/22/2015 6:44:58 AM PDT by af_vet_1981 (The bus came by and I got on, That's when it all began.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 677 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear
The Holy Spirit is given to true believers individually to guard against the nicolaitan power grab of organizations like the Catholic Church.

It is a comfort to me personally to say the above true statement but with a slight difference:

"Individual true believers in Lord Jesus Christ alone are given to the Holy Spirit to guard against the nicolaitan power grab of organizations like the Catholic Church and other imposters."
684 posted on 04/22/2015 6:46:50 AM PDT by Resettozero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 680 | View Replies]

To: metmom

First, by calling her “mother of GOD” yes, the church is saying that she is the mother of GOD. Unless you are going to deny that the Father is God and the Holy Spirit is God, the title makes her the mother of them as well since the church uses the generic term of “God”.


We have been through this discussion before. The teaching that Mary is the mother of God is based on the understanding that, while each person of the Trinity is God, each person is a separate manifestation of God. The Father is God whole and entire, the Son is God whole and entire, and the Holy Spirit is God whole and entire. But the Father is not the Son; neither is the Holy Spirit the Son. It is with this understanding of Jesus as God, whole and entire, that Mary is the mother of Jesus, God (whole and entire) with us.

You yourself indicated that Jesus spoke to Mary as God.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3277170/posts?page=35#35

How could Jesus speak to His mother as God if Mary was not the mother of Jesus as God? How do you deny that Mary is the mother of God without also denying the divinity of Jesus?


685 posted on 04/22/2015 6:48:27 AM PDT by rwa265
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 670 | View Replies]

To: metmom; rwa265
A couple points.

First, by calling her "mother of GOD" yes, the church is saying that she is the mother of GOD. Unless you are going to deny that the Father is God and the Holy Spirit is God, the title makes her the mother of them as well since the church uses the generic term of "God".

Second, by saying that she is the mother of the second person of the Trinity, that is saying that she is the mother of His Godhood, making Him a created being, with beginning. If that is the case, He is no longer GOD with us. He is merely another created being in intrinsic nature.

The title is wrong.

All that it implies is wrong.


Amen! A succinct statement of the core of the problem. It is simple linguistics. You can't put out an unqualified title of "God" without implying the full Trinitarian Godhead to the average Christian. So the title "Mother of God" is irretrievably defective. It implies too much, and expects too much theological sophistication of rank and file believers.  Even if some elite few claim they can parse it correctly under Nicaea and Chalcedon, it is 100% guaranteed to be misunderstood by the vast majority of those who will hear it.  And I am a witness to this misunderstanding directly in my own extended family, who understand it as a basis for promoting Mary to virtual deity status.  

And your second point is equally telling.  It is nearly the same linguistic problem, but applied specifically to the person of Jesus.  Motherhood to most people implies generation, not mere surrogacy.  The problem is that in Jesus we have both.  The divinity of Christ was never generated by Mary.  She is not the generative mother of God.  But from her humanity came Jesus' humanity.  Of that she was truly the mother in the generative sense.  But Jesus' humanity is not His deity.  He is one, unified person, true, but under Chalcedon, His two natures, while existing in one person, cannot be recklessly confused.  And that is precisely what "theotokus" ("mother/bearer of God") does.  It fails to make a necessary distinction between the two natures as to generation, and the very predictable result is confusion of the faithful.  Not good.

Which is why, as you say, the more robust approach is simply to use the language given to us by the Holy Spirit in Scripture, Who anticipated this challenge and provided us with a ready and safe means of dealing with it.  God's word is not just some random text over which we can debate.  It is a gift of God to us, given in love.  It's all there for our good, and will be a help to us in these matters, if we are willing to receive it as the gift of love it is.

Peace,

SR


686 posted on 04/22/2015 6:53:02 AM PDT by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 670 | View Replies]

To: Eucharista
>>The term evolved to from the combination of the prepositional phrase "Kath oles" (throughout all)<<

So is that your personal interpretation? The word catholic comes from katholikos and is never used in scripture. In fact, even the phrase "kath’ holēs" is only used in regards to multiple "churches" when it is used in regards to "churches". It's never used for a singular "church".

687 posted on 04/22/2015 7:08:31 AM PDT by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 477 | View Replies]

To: Eucharista
>>The one sure sign of ignorance of Catholic teaching is to try to interpret Catholic doctrine and dogma by the actions of Catholics.<<

Those prayers come from Catholic sites NOT individual Catholics.

688 posted on 04/22/2015 7:10:48 AM PDT by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 483 | View Replies]

To: af_vet_1981
>>which translates as: churches throughout all<<

Multiple ekklesia my FRiend. NOT one nicolaitan organization.

689 posted on 04/22/2015 7:12:13 AM PDT by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 492 | View Replies]

To: metmom
>>Just when you think you’ve heard it all......<<

The attempts to justify Catholic erroneous teaching does get bizarre doesn't it.

690 posted on 04/22/2015 7:13:39 AM PDT by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 494 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
>>It's also a good policy to ask them for clarification when there seems to be some apparent conflict or ambiguity.<<

LOL When they respond with a clear statement of "we do not pray to" it's pretty clear. Everything after that becomes obfuscation.

691 posted on 04/22/2015 7:17:57 AM PDT by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 512 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock; ealgeone; Eucharista; metmom; Alex Murphy; RnMomof7

It’s interesting how many times those “well catechised” have to be shown what their catechism really says isn’t it?


692 posted on 04/22/2015 7:22:25 AM PDT by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 664 | View Replies]

To: NYer; ealgeone

How do you keep going? Especially since your form of argument appears to be to just stick your fingers in your ears and pretend that no one has answered your questions.

Your argument — that the RCC has never taught and then retracted errant interpretations of scripture — fails if anyone can show a single instance of the RCC changing its position. I have done so. The Hussite Crusades were (a) RCC-sanctioned violent wars to suppress a reform movement within the RCC; (b) for the purpose of forcing the Hussites to surrender their reform positions, including scriptural interpretations and the non-RCC manner of communion; (c) the Hussites could not be in communion with the RCC if they held those positions; and (d) if the RCC accepted communion with the Hussites, it would be admitting that non-RCC interpretations could be in communion with the church.

(a) Crusades, especially violent crusades for the purpose of putting down heresy, are no longer part of RCC doctrine. RCC changed its position on whether scripture requires or permits violent wars to impose RCC doctrine.

(b) Vatican II radically expanded freedom of conscience within the church. The Hussites might actually be merely a blip on the radar under Vatican II. Probably not, though, because of their radical departure from RCC doctrines.

(c) & (d) The RCC ended the Hussite wars by permitting the Hussites to retain their distinctives but still remain within the RCC. But the RCC went to war five times over those distinctives. And then caved and changed its position.

The only reason I’m using the Hussites is because I am reading about them now. But I could use any of the examples I have provided to show that the RCC has changed its position on what scripture does and does not require.

Councilarism and the age of three popes is another good example. I already gave you mortification of the flesh. Every single example I have given you involved a practice justified by the RCC at one time as consistent with or required by scripture and tradition and then later not justified.

Usury is another that comes to mind. Paying interest on your loans? That’s sinful. Except now it isn’t. Supremacy of papal authority over secular authority in secular affairs. I don’t see Pope Francis demanding that RCC leaders submit to him in secular affairs — it would actually be kind of refreshing if hypocrites like Nancy “Abortion is Catholic” Pelosi were refused communion and excommunicated, but the RCC refrains generally from interference in secular affairs and she apparently manages to find priests who can stomach giving her communion. Over and over and over.

Instead of acknowledging what everyone else already sees, you keep moving the goal posts. You seem to now insist that I provide you with an official RCC document stating that “Oops, we got it wrong. Our bad.” While I would point to Vatican II as coming pretty close — Mass is properly only said in Latin because scripture says that Peter was the first pope and he spoke Latin and therefore we need to burn Wycliff and other reformers for suggesting that mass and scripture could be rendered in vulgar tongues. Except now we don’t. But I don’t even need to go there because the absurdity of your “the RCC never once in its history made and then changed an interpretation of scripture” point is so patently apparent that I can’t even believe I’m still having a discussion on this point.

And I’m not even bashing the RCC. It is engaging in a natural progression of being conformed to God’s plan and purpose for the Church. Every discrete community of believers out there does this.

As I said before, further disputation with you is futile.


693 posted on 04/22/2015 7:23:02 AM PDT by FateAmenableToChange
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 459 | View Replies]

To: af_vet_1981

It’s sad to watch you try to equate the god of Muslims to the god of scripture.


694 posted on 04/22/2015 7:24:28 AM PDT by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 683 | View Replies]

To: metmom

The title is wrong.

All that it implies is wrong.

The Catholic church was wrong for the hubris of changing the title given Mary by the Holy Spirit, which is “mother of Jesus”.

Mary is mother of JESUS, not mother of GOD and all the weasel words, redefining words, convoluted explantions and justifications the church and Catholics put forth to excuse and justify their messing with the God breathed, Holy Spirit inspired word of God cannot change that.

They cannot improve on the work of God and have no right or authority to do so.

Mary is the mother of Jesus, GOD WITH US, the Incarnation; not the mother of GOD.

AMEN!


695 posted on 04/22/2015 7:25:12 AM PDT by DungeonMaster (The Word of God is sexist, so I am too.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 670 | View Replies]

To: Resettozero
>>"Individual true believers in Lord Jesus Christ alone are given to the Holy Spirit to guard against the nicolaitan power grab of organizations like the Catholic Church and other imposters."<<

A better and more concise rendering indeed.

696 posted on 04/22/2015 7:26:00 AM PDT by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 684 | View Replies]

To: Springfield Reformer

You can’t put out an unqualified title of “God” without implying the full Trinitarian Godhead to the average Christian.


This statement does not show much confidence in the average Christian having a good understanding of the Trinity.


697 posted on 04/22/2015 7:31:20 AM PDT by rwa265
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 686 | View Replies]

To: Eucharista
Brilliant? Are you kidding me? Paul said had an altar "To The Unknown God." The Muslims don't worship what they describe as an "unknown god". They describe their god with explicit detail and it's not the God of scripture. The fact that neither the Catholic Church nor Catholics can discern the difference is sad.
698 posted on 04/22/2015 7:32:40 AM PDT by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 476 | View Replies]

To: Elsie; Mark17; Resettozero
You missed a lot!

You do not appear to understand Revelation 20 at all.

The sentence “ The rest of the dead lived not, till the thousand years were finished” is a parenthetical explanation of why they are not being resurrected in the First resurrection.

You seem to miss verse 6.

Rev.20:6 "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years".

That is the First Resurrection, not the one where the books are opened, and people are judged by their works.

The participants in the first resurrection receive the Grace of the Father because they confessed their sins, and repented, and kept his commandments that were written on their hearts. Those that go to the GWT 1000 years later are not eligible for that grace.

699 posted on 04/22/2015 7:33:24 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 667 | View Replies]

To: rwa265
...does not show much confidence in the average Christian having a good understanding of the Trinity.

That's because, as this sub-par Christian can testify, most Christians do not nor can they ever admit to fully understanding the makeup of Almighty God. I question ANY person who says they do.
700 posted on 04/22/2015 7:37:31 AM PDT by Resettozero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 697 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 661-680681-700701-720 ... 981-984 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson