Peter NOONE??? Of Herman's Hermits? Cool! ;o)
Posted on 09/15/2013 1:37:28 PM PDT by matthewrobertolson
(This was originally shared here on AnsweringProtestants.com, as part of a longer post.)
There is nothing wrong with asking the heavenly saints to pray for us.
Many Protestants argue that asking the saints to pray for us is “unbiblical,” while throwing around verses like 1 Timothy 2:5. But they are incorrect.
1 Timothy 2:5 — the infamous “one mediator between God and men” verse — refers to salvation, not prayer. The verse reminds us that it is only because of the graces found through Christ (God Himself) that we are able to have any real relationship with God and reach Heaven. It does not, however, absolutely negate relations with angels or heavenly saints. After all, it was an angel (Gabriel) that spoke to Mary before Christ was conceived in her body, not God Himself.
I was raised in several Protestant denominations. They all placed a major emphasis on Christians praying for each other — which is encouraged in 1 Timothy 2:1-4 and other passages. I would contend that a saint, one who is holy and in Heaven with God, would have a lot more sway with God than a rebellious sinner on earth would.
To put that another way, if someone asked you to do something for them, would you not be more likely to help them if they were your best friend, as opposed to a complete stranger? Of course, you may very well be willing to do something for a complete stranger, but you would probably be more willing to do something for your best friend.
And there is evidence in the Bible of the saints praying to God.
“Another angel came and stood at the altar, holding a golden censer; and much incense was given to him, so that he might add it to the prayers of all the saints on the golden altar which was before the throne. And the smoke of the incense, with the prayers of the saints, went up before God out of the angel’s hand.” – Revelation 8:3-4
The word for “saints” in that passage comes from the Greek word hagios. Thayer’s New Testament Greek-English Lexicon says that the best definition of hagios is “most holy thing, a saint”. This would seem to undermine the Protestant assertion that “saints” in this context can only refer to people on earth.
Now, what would the saints be praying for? Themselves? Doubtful. They are in Heaven, so they do not need anything, as eternal life with God is perfect. That really only leaves one option: they are praying for us. And because they are praying for us anyway, how could it be wrong to ask them to pray for us about something specific? It is like interacting with a DJ at an event. He’s playing music anyway, so what is the harm in asking him to play your favorite song?
Here’s my Scripture-based defense of the practice that should answer most Protestant objections:
Matthew 17:3-4 & Luke 9:28-31.
Moses and Elijah (who are clearly heavenly saints, not “saints” in the way Paul would sometimes use the word) are with Christ during the Transfiguration.
Revelation 6:9-11.
The martyrs can talk to God.
From those three passages, we can gather that the saints in Heaven interact with God.
Luke 15:10.
The angels and saints (who, in Luke 20:35-36, Christ says are equal to the angels) are aware of earthly events.
1 Timothy 2:1 & James 5:16.
It is good for Christians to pray for one another.
Now, if the saints interact with God and are aware of earthly events (and can therefore hear us), why wouldn’t they pray for us, considering that it is good for Christians (which the angels and saints definitely are) to pray for one another?
Revelation 21:27.
Nothing imperfect will enter into Heaven.
Psalm 66:18 & James 5:16.
God ignores the prayers of the wicked, and the prayers of the righteous are effective.
Because the saints have reached perfection (they are in Heaven), their prayers are more effective than the prayers of those that are less righteous, so that’s why one might ask them to pray instead of asking another Christian on earth or simply doing it themselves.
(All verses are from the NASB translation.)
Please “Follow” me on Twitter, “Like” Answering Protestants on Facebook, Add Answering Protestants to your Circles on Google+, and “Subscribe” to my YouTube apologetic videos.
The pride in one desiring to attain Sainthood should automatically disqualify that person from becoming a Saint.
You would think. But I guess we would be wrong. It just never occurred to me that a person would actually set out to become a saint. Who knew??
Well, since it seems to be about the only way a Catholic can be guaranteed salvation and a place in heaven, could you really blame them?
Nah, I don’t blame them. Until the bill comes due...what a shocker it’s gonna’ be ;)
You’ll run into a good Catholic someday. (I’m convinced most of us do.) There are a few around; and maybe that person will be a beacon of Light, to show you that the Catholic faith (Christ in the Eucharist!) is perfection........
I hate the Saints!!! ....Oh, wait, are you talking about the New Orleans Saints?
The pride in one desiring to attain Sainthood should automatically disqualify that person from becoming a Saint.They don't put their desire on billboards. And of course, their humility prevents them from ever thinking they actually could become saints; it was St. Bernadette of Lourdes who said [and this is a paraphrase], "When I die, you'll be asking for my intercession and talking, talking, of how I am a great saint, and all the while I'll be burning in purgatory, with no one left to pray for me."
The pride in one desiring to attain Sainthood should automatically disqualify that person from becoming a Saint.They don't put their desire on billboards. And of course, their humility prevents them from ever thinking they actually could become saints; it was St. Bernadette of Lourdes who said [and this is a paraphrase], "When I die, you'll be asking for my intercession and talking, talking, of how I am a great saint, and all the while I'll be burning in purgatory, with no one left to pray for me."
you obviously do not understand cananozation....all who die and go to heaven are saints....the Catholic Church, when proclaiming someone to be a saint, merely says that there is sufficient evidence that person X is actually in heaven and can be called a saint. Your mother may be a saint, but unless you can prove that she is in Heaven, she cannot be venerated as such...
There is no such thing as a canon of any scriptures. That is just one of the many self promoting lies of the catholic abomination.
The various kelia spread around the Mediterranean had no need for a “new testament; they needed guidance on how to live by Yehova’s commandments in the scriptures that they already had, the same ones that Yeshua quoted from, in the Torah scrolls that they all had from the time that their congregations were born.
In short, they needed “The Way.”
Paul’s letters, written in Hebrew by necessity, were those instructions. He wrote far more letters than we have preserved today, judging by the comments of early church leaders, but we will do with what we have until Yehova sees fit to reveal more to us.
There is no chronological flaw.
The "one mediator" is Jesus. I haven't seen anyone in this thread dispute this. So if I have Jesus as mediator, why do I need any saints? Jesus is not sufficient?
Pray to the saints if you want to. But, ultimately, they have to go to Jesus to get anything done anyway. I strive for efficiency, so I'll just go straight to the Savior.
thousands...Gesu in Milwaukee is a very large and famous Catholic church....Divine Savior, holy reedemer, Christ the King, etc etc etc
>> “The picture? And yes, all the saints pray for everyone” <<
.
OIC, just one great big Seance.
Necromancers have all the fun.
Jesus is consubstantial with the Father....there is noone between them
I appreciate what you are saying. Jesus and God the Father are one.
However, John 17:5 leads me to believe that Jesus temporarily set aside his heavenly glory to do the will of the Father with respect to Jesus' earthly mission. This would help to explain the several examples in the Holy Bible where Jesus prays to the Father even though he is one with the Father.
Oh I understand it well. I also understand someone who proclaims to know what is written in the book of life is misguided
Peter NOONE??? Of Herman's Hermits? Cool! ;o)
If Catholicism is so wonderful why does it have so little impact on the lives of the vast majority of Catholics that there's a chance that jodyel will run into a "good" Catholic *SOMEDAY*??? There are a *FEW* around? Yeah, I agree with that. A FEW. In spite of Catholicism, not because of it.
Any religion that cannot have more of an impact on the personal, day to day lives of those associated with it, is not worth the time and effort investigating it.
When Catholicism produces the kind of fruits among it's parishioners which FRomoan Catholics claim it does, then maybe people will begin to take it more seriously.
They may call themselves Catholics, and they may even go to Mass, but when it comes to life choices they are virtually indistinguishable from everyone else in America. They don’t live radical Christianity out in any real sort of way. Their lives look just like the lives of their worldly neighbors. They don’t give any more than the average joe. They seem just as likely to divorce their spouses, have only 2.5 children as their non Catholic neighbors and they seem just as materialistic as everyone else. They attend church if they feel like it, but if there’s a weekend football game or the call of the beach house they’re just as likely to respond to that demand. When it comes to voting, they’ll vote as they wish according to wherever they get their opinions from–TV, the newspaper, the mass media–just like their neighbors. The one source they won’t consider when informing their vote is their priests and bishops.
— from the thread Catholic Vote?Are Catholics now so “successfully” assimilated into American political life that they are without political impact—that there really is no such thing as a “Catholic vote”? Unfortunately enough, Catholics are largely indistinguishable from non-Catholics and, despite a few pundits, no, there really is no “Catholic vote.” This obvious conclusion—clear enough from the fact that the vote for the winning candidates in the last national election was approximately the same for Catholics and non-Catholics—has serious current implications....
....Compare two lists: According to the USCCB, the five most Catholic states, in population, are: Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Connecticut. According to the American Life League, the states with the most pro-life legislation (i.e., inhibiting abortion in various ways) are: Oklahoma, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Arkansas and Texas. This is a shocker. In short, there is no Catholic political impact in support of life in those states reportedly having the most Catholics. As Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia put it, after the 2008 election, “[w]e need to stop overcounting our numbers, our influence, our institutions, and our resources, because they are not real.”
— from the thread The Mythical Catholic Vote: The Harmful Consequences of Political Assimilation
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.