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 ... 1,381-1,4001,401-1,4201,421-1,440 ... 1,621-1,636 next last
To: stonehouse01
To know history is to cease to be protestant.

To know Scripture is to cease to be Catholic.

1,401 posted on 07/20/2013 11:14:48 AM 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 1366 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion
You should! It’s a perfect straw man argument simultaneously begs the question as a logical fallacy.

Problem is, Catholics think it's a brilliant, irrefutable argument. That's the level of their spiritual debate.

1,402 posted on 07/20/2013 11:20:09 AM 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 1398 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
From a site called: www.cathtruth.com/catholicbible/‎ "As the author, the Catholic Church is the only proper authority to consult in matters pertaining to the Bible." (The Catholic Bible)

When I first encountered the argument from the Catholics that the Catholic church wrote the Bible, I figured that the only reason for them to claim to have written it was to try to put beyond all dispute their ownership of it and their claim to be the only ones to *properly* interpret it.

Problem is, some 2,000 years later, the people wrote it are dead and the ability to correctly interpret is not genetic. It was not and can not be passed on.

Only the Holy Spirit can properly interpret Scripture to the believer and since He is still around and hasn't changed, He is the only source of correct interpretation.

1,403 posted on 07/20/2013 11:26:21 AM 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 1400 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein

“As an old-fashioned, 50s type Catholic, I don’t even read the Bible.

Interesting. My dad was a Baptist preacher in the ‘50s in a small town. He and the town’s R.C. priest were very friendly. I recall that R.C. friends were forbidden to read the Bible. When Dad asked Fr. George why that was, Fr. George said, “Because they might learn something.” He wasn’t kidding. I never forgot that.


1,404 posted on 07/20/2013 11:32:01 AM PDT by MayflowerMadam (I feel much better since I gave up hope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: MayflowerMadam

In before it’s dismissed as anecdotal evidence.

(Which I don’t doubt for a minute.)


1,405 posted on 07/20/2013 12:11:48 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 1404 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion

And, in a round about way; it’s circular!


1,406 posted on 07/20/2013 12:14:09 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1398 | View Replies]

To: bkaycee

That is precisely the point - if anyone can decide the canons for themselves, Luther included, than how do we know the actual canon? Anyone is now free to add and delete to support their own theories. If Luther has authority, than anyone has authority and then it is a free for all.

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)

It took years for Christ’s teachings to be written down, and then several hundred years before any texts were considered official. (Council of Hippo, St. Augustine, 393, Carthage, 397).

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.


1,407 posted on 07/20/2013 12:26:36 PM PDT by stonehouse01 (Equal rights for unborn women)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1394 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

“..wildly swining to hating Martin Luther...”

No one hates Martin Luther, he just didn’t have the authority to start a religion.


1,408 posted on 07/20/2013 12:30:58 PM PDT by stonehouse01 (Equal rights for unborn women)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1368 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

Yes the protestant bible.


1,409 posted on 07/20/2013 12:33:16 PM PDT by stonehouse01 (Equal rights for unborn women)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1390 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Christ’s history came before (New Testament) scripture was written down - history comes first - see post #1407.


1,410 posted on 07/20/2013 12:35:56 PM PDT by stonehouse01 (Equal rights for unborn women)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1401 | View Replies]

To: metmom

“Problem is, Catholics think it’s a brilliant, irrefutable argument. That’s the level of their spiritual debate.”
Well, think about it...

The Roman Catholic Church thinks that because they claim to be infallible and the authority, that every authority must also make that claim. It isn’t enough that the Bible is THE INSPIRED WORD OF GOD. Unless God also says something extra, it is a disconnect for them. Also, how could they adhere to two ultimate authorities? Heck, include the Savior and how can they have three or four. Better to stick with the church.


1,411 posted on 07/20/2013 12:47:51 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion ( The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws. - Tacitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1402 | View Replies]

To: metmom

“Problem is, Catholics think it’s a brilliant, irrefutable argument. That’s the level of their spiritual debate.”

This is the Roman Catholic equivalent to the mormonic argument: “How could Christ talk to the Father? Was he talking to himself?” With their limited understanding of the nature of God, it makes perfect sense to them.


1,412 posted on 07/20/2013 12:49:39 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion ( The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws. - Tacitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1402 | View Replies]

To: stonehouse01

“That is precisely the point - if anyone can decide the canons for themselves, Luther included, than how do we know the actual canon? “

Other than cults, who is actively deciding the Canon of the Bible today? Maybe the secular Jesus Project?

It seems you could forge a better argument than this...

“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.”

And yet we do have a complete canon, and yet some still want to adhere to false tradition that invalidates that canon.

The early Christians had EXACTLY what God intended and provided at the time.
Now we have EXACTLY what God intends and provided for us.

The bigger question is, WHAT will you do with it??


1,413 posted on 07/20/2013 12:52:20 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion ( The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws. - Tacitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1407 | View Replies]

To: stonehouse01

“No one hates Martin Luther, he just didn’t have the authority to start a religion.”

He was a man conceived in sin, like any pope. While there is much to dislike in his life, like King David, he was used by God to recover much. For this I am thankful, but I don’t follow Luther like some kind of leader. I just appreciate what he accomplished.

It would have been unnecessary, if the “authorities” hadn’t been “starting their own religion.”


1,414 posted on 07/20/2013 12:54:33 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion ( The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws. - Tacitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1408 | View Replies]

To: stonehouse01

“Christ’s history came before (New Testament) scripture was written down - history comes first - see post #1407.”

Heck, Christ existed before time, let alone history!


1,415 posted on 07/20/2013 12:55:29 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion ( The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws. - Tacitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1410 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion; Iscool
Heck, Christ existed before time, let alone history!

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

1,416 posted on 07/20/2013 1:26:46 PM PDT by verga (A nation divided by Zero!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1415 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

No, we are members of the church militant.


1,417 posted on 07/20/2013 1:36:18 PM PDT by rcofdayton (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1198 | View Replies]

To: metmom
And it flows from that “only proper authority” argument that nothing you or I or anyone else might say pertaining to the Bible can be correct unless it was with consultation with Catholic sources.

If you make the most logical and reasonable argument from the Scriptures concerning praying to the dead or the existence of a purgatory it matters not the least since it's just an “interpretation” whereas the Catholic Church will have the “explanation” either from “Holy Tradition” or so-called “Church Fathers”, or “Infallible” pronouncement.

These then will “explain” the Scriptures rather than vice versa.

1,418 posted on 07/20/2013 1:38:25 PM PDT by count-your-change (you don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1403 | View Replies]

To: stonehouse01

That’s not a quote of my reply. The misspelling is yours alone.

What religion did Martin Luther start, stonehouse01?


1,419 posted on 07/20/2013 1:58:42 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1408 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion

That is the point of the questions - to get a person to ask exactly that question - What will you do with it?

“...and yet we do have a complete canon...” because of St. Jerome - a catholic -

Upon what authority was Martin Luther suddenly qualifed to not include 2 Maccabees because it alludes to purgatory and praying for the dead because it didn’t fit in with his theology? Why does he get to do this - who says Luther is right and St. Jerome (et al.) are not?
Luther’s theology is completely different than the theology espoused for 1,500 years prior to that and his doesn’t allow for purgatory - why is Luther right and Jerome wrong - and how do you know? Because the bible says so? Luther changed the bible to suit his theology ...

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.


1,420 posted on 07/20/2013 2:06:08 PM PDT by stonehouse01 (Equal rights for unborn women)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1413 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,381-1,4001,401-1,4201,421-1,440 ... 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