Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Where Does the Bible Say We Should Pray to Dead Saints?
catholic-convert ^ | July 11, 2012 | Steve Ray

Posted on 07/14/2013 3:02:43 PM PDT by NYer

Are saints who have physically died “dead saints” or are they alive with God?

A friend named Leonard Alt got tired of being hammered by anti-Catholic Fundamentalists on this issue so he decided to write this article. I thought you might enjoy it too, so here it goes…

Leonard writes: I wrote this note after several days of frustration with people, on Facebook, saying that saints can’t do anything, because they are dead. They seem to be leaving out the fact that the souls live on. ENJOY!

Dead and gone? Where is his soul-his person?

An antagonist named Warren Ritz asked, “Who are the “dead in Christ”, if not those who walked with our Lord, but who are now no longer among the living?” He is correct; the “dead in Christ” are those saints who have physically died. “For the Lord himself, with a word of command, with the voice of an archangel and with the trumpet of God, will come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first” (1 Thess 4:16).

THE CONCEPT OF LIVING SAINTS CAN DO HARM TO THE “JESUS ALONE” DOCTRINE. From some people’s point of view, people who have died are classified as “dead saints,” who can do nothing. They are no longer a force to reckon with; they can no longer appear; they cannot talk nor do other things. These same people don’t want the saints who have died doing anything because this would be another reason why the Protestant doctrine, “JESUS ALONE” fails. If the so-called “dead saints” do anything then it is not “JESUS ALONE,” but Jesus and the saints cooperating. And it would also mean that the so-called “dead saints” are in fact not dead, but alive with God.

Dead or in paradise?

HIS PHYSICAL BODY DIED BUT HIS SOUL LIVED ON. But, are the Saints who have gone before us alive with God or are they truly “dead saints” who can do nothing as some would suggest? Yes, their bodies are dead, but their souls live on. For example Jesus said to one of the criminals on the cross next to him, “Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise” (Lk 23:43). Yes, that day, this man became the dead in Christ because his physical body died on his cross; however, Jesus said that today, this man would be with Him in paradise. He was no “dead saint” because his soul was alive in Christ in Paradise.

Abraham, Isaac and Jacob alive and concerned for their descendants

HE IS THE GOD OF THE LIVING. One person alluded to Mark 12:26-27 saying “Jesus is the God of the living, not of the dead” in an attempt to show that Jesus cannot be the god of those who have died; after all he says “Jesus is the god of the living.” However, he left out three people who were no longer alive in verse 26; Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. God said that He was their God. And so does that mean that God is the God of the dead? No; “He is not God of the dead but of the living.”

Abraham Isaac and Jacob are physically dead and yet their souls are alive because their God is not God of the dead but of the living and thus do not qualify as “dead saints.”

Moses was dead and buried. How could he talk to Jesus about future events on earth?

WHEN MOSES AND ELIJAH APPEARED WERE THEY DEAD OR ALIVE? There are those who insist that saints who have died are nothing more than “dead saints” who can do nothing. I usually ask them this question. When Moses and Elijah appeared with Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration, were they dead or alive? “And behold, two men were conversing with him, Moses and Elijah” (Lk 9:30). Not bad for a couple of so-called “dead saints;” not only did they appear, but they were talking as well. The question that I asked usually goes unanswered.

SORRY LEONARD…YOU HAVE A BAD ARGUMENT. Bill says, “As Ecclesiastes says the dead have nothing more to do under the sun…sorry Leonard…you have a bad argument.” He is using this as definitive Biblical proof that people on the other side cannot do anything once they have died. After all, Ecclesiastes does say, “For them, love and hatred and rivalry have long since perished. They [the dead] will never again have part in anything that is done under the sun” (Eccles 9:6).

When a person dies their body is in the grave; it is dead. They can no longer work under the sun, in this world. However, Ecclesiastes 9:6 is not a prohibition against the activity of the person’s soul, which lives on. This of course begs the question; is there any indication of personal activity of a soul after death, in Scripture?

How did the bones of a dead guy bring another dead guy back to life?

Yes, there are a number of examples and here is one of them. Elisha after dying performed marvelous deeds. In life he [Elisha] performed wonders, and after death, marvelous deeds (Sir 48:14). “Elisha died and was buried. At the time, bands of Moabites used to raid the land each year. Once some people were burying a man, when suddenly they spied such a raiding band. So they cast the dead man into the grave of Elisha, and everyone went off. But when the man came in contact with the bones of Elisha, he came back to life and rose to his feet” (Kings 13:20-21).

Using, Ecclesiastes 9:6 as a prohibition against all soul activity after death is to use the verse out of context and at odds with other parts of the Bible. Ecclesiastes 9:6 is referring to the physical body that has died, not the soul that lives on. Elisha, after death performed marvelous deeds. It can’t be much clearer than that!

The saints are not dead but alive in the presence of their Lord Jesus and part of the praying Mystical Body of Christ

JESUS NEVER CLAIMED THAT THOSE WHO HAVE DIED ARE “DEAD SAINTS.” Jesus understood well that when someone dies, they will live and in fact those who live and believe in him WILL NEVER DIE.

Jesus told her, “I am the resurrection and the life; whoever believes in me, even if he dies, will live, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this” (Jn 11:23-26)?

This union, with the saints on this side and the saints on the other side is referred to as the communion of saints in the Apostles Creed. Those who insist that “dead saints” can’t do anything because their bodies have physically died seem not to understand that their souls live on and are very involved.

So, where does the Bible say we should pray to dead saints? I would ask, Where does the Bible say saints are dead?



TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Ministry/Outreach
KEYWORDS: catholic; deadsaints; doctrine; prayer; scripture
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,401-1,4201,421-1,4401,441-1,460 ... 1,621-1,636 next last
To: stonehouse01; bkaycee; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; blue-duncan; boatbums; caww; ...
For up to 30 years after Christ’s crucifixion, no new testament was written yet, and ALL information about him was transmitted orally. So at least those Christians couldn’t say- it’s in the bible -so what did they do? (rhetorical question)

Here's a non-rhetorical answer....

Acts 17:10-12 10 The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. 11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. 12 Many of them therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men.

Hmmm, now if they had no Scripture written down yet, how could they have examined the Scripture DAILY to see if these things were so? Or rather WHAT were they examining daily to see if these things were so? (not a rhetorical question)

1,421 posted on 07/20/2013 2:35:37 PM PDT by metmom (rFor freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1407 | View Replies]

To: stonehouse01
Christians in the beginning did not have the bible alone - they depended upon oral tradition. Christ was a preacher, not a writer, and the first Christians never saw a complete bible.

Sure they did. It's called the Law and the Prophets.

They most certainly had what they recognized as Scripture. Jesus Himself used it to validate His mission and teachings. He used it against Satan when tempted in the wilderness.

1,422 posted on 07/20/2013 2:37:32 PM PDT by metmom (rFor freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1407 | View Replies]

To: stonehouse01; RegulatorCountry
No one hates Martin Luther, he just didn’t have the authority to start a religion.

He didn't start a religion.

Matter of fact, I don't have a religion. I have Jesus, a relationship.

1,423 posted on 07/20/2013 2:38:45 PM PDT by metmom (rFor freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1408 | View Replies]

To: stonehouse01

Prophecy foretold Jesus.

*It is written.....* appears in many places in the NT.


1,424 posted on 07/20/2013 2:39:38 PM PDT by metmom (rFor freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1410 | View Replies]

To: stonehouse01
One thing I will not do with it is go along with Luther just because he decided good works are useless for salvation when James says otherwise (Faith without works is dead). I’m surprised Luther didn’t try to toss James - maybe he thought about it.

How do you think you guys can discuss or critique the bible when you don't even know what the bible says???

Luther decided good works are useless for salvation??? Where did Luther get that idea??? Do you even have a clue???

1,425 posted on 07/20/2013 2:41:53 PM PDT by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1420 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

Their credibility is taking a beating due to their rabid hatred of Luther.

LDS - Luther Derangement Syndrome.


1,426 posted on 07/20/2013 2:44:07 PM PDT by metmom (rFor freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1425 | View Replies]

To: narses
Are you really saying the explanation about Luther NOT removing ANY books from the Bible is "MY" own personal intrepretation of that fact??? You must be joking! LOLOL!
1,427 posted on 07/20/2013 2:53:28 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1354 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Truth falls on deaf ears for someone, anyone, who does not WANT to believe it.

Thanks for the encouragements.

But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine to them. For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake. (II Cor. 4:3-5)

1,428 posted on 07/20/2013 2:58:42 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1370 | View Replies]

To: verga


Next thing is you will claim that he existed before space.”

Ha!


1,429 posted on 07/20/2013 3:10:45 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion ( The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws. - Tacitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1416 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin

So let me get this straight. A guy changes his mind and decides he needs to say something and you consider him “untrustworthy”. Yet here you are trying to change people’s minds so that they will believe something they have said they would not. If they then begin to believe like the Catholics believe I suppose those people by your definition would then be “untrustworthy”. Why would you spend your time here trying to make people “untrustworthy”?


1,430 posted on 07/20/2013 3:13:39 PM PDT by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1346 | View Replies]

To: stonehouse01

“One thing I will not do with it is go along with Luther just because he decided good works are useless for salvation when James says otherwise (Faith without works is dead”

James makes the correct observation tha the kind of faith that saves cannot be seen. Saving faith is always accompanied by good works.

I agree with James and Luther agrees with James and I.


1,431 posted on 07/20/2013 3:14:04 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion ( The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws. - Tacituss)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1420 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion

To: Rashputin

Please don’t ping me again. I will return the favor.

1,891 posted on Friday, December 21, 2012 12:38:42 by CynicalBear


People who cannot keep their word are by definition untrustworthy.


1,432 posted on 07/20/2013 3:48:52 PM PDT by Rashputin (Jesus Christ doesn't evacuate His troops, He leads them to victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1431 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin

I don’t think I’ve ever pinged you... But for future reference, sure!


1,433 posted on 07/20/2013 4:12:20 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion ( The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws. - Tacituss)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1432 | View Replies]

To: stonehouse01
If Luther has authority, than anyone has authority and then it is a free for all.

Luther Agreed with Jerome that the deuterocanonical were OK for reading but were not God Breathed Scripture.

Deuterocanonical means second Canon for a reason.

For up to 30 years after Christ’s crucifixion, no new testament was written yet, and ALL information about him was transmitted orally. So at least those Christians couldn’t say- it’s in the bible -so what did they do?

They had most of the Apostles still living and telling them what Jesus said. Much of the NT was penned before the 30 years your talking about.

Roman Church did declare via fiat what the New Testament included! For the New Testament, the process of the recognition and collection began in the first centuries of the Christian church. Very early on, some of the New Testament books were being recognized. Paul considered Luke’s writings to be as authoritative as the Old Testament (1 Timothy 5:18; see also Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7). Peter recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). Some of the books of the New Testament were being circulated among the churches (Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27). Clement of Rome mentioned at least eight New Testament books (A.D. 95). Ignatius of Antioch acknowledged about seven books (A.D. 115). Polycarp, a disciple of John the apostle, acknowledged 15 books (A.D. 108). Later, Irenaeus mentioned 21 books (A.D. 185). Hippolytus recognized 22 books (A.D. 170-235). The New Testament books receiving the most controversy were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John.

The first “canon” was the Muratorian Canon, which was compiled in A.D. 170. The Muratorian Canon included all of the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, and 3 John. In A.D. 363, the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament (along with the Apocrypha) and the 27 books of the New Testament were to be read in the churches. The Council of Hippo (A.D. 393) and the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) also affirmed the same 27 books as authoritative.

The councils followed something similar to the following principles to determine whether a New Testament book was truly inspired by the Holy Spirit:
1) Was the author an apostle or have a close connection with an apostle?
2) Is the book being accepted by the body of Christ at large?
3) Did the book contain consistency of doctrine and orthodox teaching?
4) Did the book bear evidence of high moral and spiritual values that would reflect a work of the Holy Spirit?

Again, it is crucial to remember that the church did not determine the canon. No early church council decided on the canon. It was God, and God alone, who determined which books belonged in the Bible. It was simply a matter of God’s imparting to His followers what He had already decided.

The human process of collecting the books of the Bible was flawed, but God, in His sovereignty, and despite our ignorance and stubbornness, brought the early church to the recognition of the books He had inspired.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/canon-Bible.html#ixzz2ZdSNDWbp

1,434 posted on 07/20/2013 5:34:33 PM PDT by bkaycee (John 3:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1407 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

1,435 posted on 07/20/2013 5:36:28 PM PDT by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1427 | View Replies]

To: bkaycee
Luther Agreed with Jerome that the deuterocanonical were OK for reading but were not God Breathed Scripture.

Neither one had authority to unilaterally edit the received Scriptures.

Only a Church Council, or the pope, had the authority to determine the canon of Scripture.

1,436 posted on 07/20/2013 5:38:00 PM PDT by St_Thomas_Aquinas ( Isaiah 22:22, Matthew 16:19, Revelation 3:7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1434 | View Replies]

To: stonehouse01

Luther Believed Jerome, who did not believe the deuterocanonicals were inspired.

They both believed they were fine to read in church, just not scripture.


1,437 posted on 07/20/2013 5:40:13 PM PDT by bkaycee (John 3:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1420 | View Replies]

To: St_Thomas_Aquinas

Pope Gregory the Great, did not believe Maccabees was scripure


1,438 posted on 07/20/2013 5:43:38 PM PDT by bkaycee (John 3:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1436 | View Replies]

To: St_Thomas_Aquinas

Pope Gregory the Great In his commentary on Job, Book 19, chapter 34, he says that it is not irregular to quote for the church’s edification the books of the Apocrypha, as long as it is understood that they are not canonical. He then immediately retells the story from 1 Macc. 6:42-47 concerning the death of Eleazar Savaran, who killed an elephant, though being killed in the process. Gregory’s exact words are these: “De qua re non inordinate agimus, si ex libris, licet non canonicis, tamen ad aedificationem ecclesiae editis, testimonium proferamus” (emphasis added). The translation already linked renders it: “With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edifying of the Church, we bring forward testimony.” What immediately follows is from Maccabees. So, if Trent is correct in anathematizing all who reject the Apocrypha, then they have retroactively anathematized one of their own popes:

http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2011/01/31/a-pope-rejects-maccabees/


1,439 posted on 07/20/2013 5:47:37 PM PDT by bkaycee (John 3:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1436 | View Replies]

To: bkaycee
Pope Gregory the Great, did not believe Maccabees was scripure

I read up on this, and the problem is an equivocal use of the term, "canonical." The Church did, and does, consider the "deuterocanonical books" of the Bible as the "second canon," just as the Epistles could be said to be held in lesser esteem than the Gospels, even though both are part of the canon of Scripture.

1,440 posted on 07/20/2013 5:51:49 PM PDT by St_Thomas_Aquinas ( Isaiah 22:22, Matthew 16:19, Revelation 3:7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1438 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,401-1,4201,421-1,4401,441-1,460 ... 1,621-1,636 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