Praying to Saints

Tim Staples' Blog ^ | October 25, 2013 | Tim Staples

[GonzoII]

Praying to Saints

In his book, Answers to Catholic Claims, A Discussion of Biblical Authority, Protestant Apologist James White claims praying to saints is contrary to Scripture:

The Bible strongly condemns communication with the dead. It does not matter if those who died were good or bad, saintly or evil, there is to be no communication between the living and the dead. The only communication with spirit beings that originates with man that is allowed in Scripture is that of prayer to God and He alone.

Biblical texts like Deut. 18:10-11 and Isaiah 19:3—each of which condemns necromancy—are employed to say “communication with the dead” is condemned absolutely.

Actually, what is being condemned in these texts from Deuteronomy and Isaiah is conjuring up the dead through wizards and mediums, not praying to saints. The Church has always condemned this that is commonly called necromancy. Mediums attempt to conjure up spirits and manipulate the spiritual realm at will. This is categorically different from Christians asking for the intercession of their brothers and sisters in Christ. We do not “conjure up” or manipulate anything or anyone. True prayer—whether to God or the angels and saints—changes the pray-er, not the pray-ee.

If one says recklessly as Mr. White said, “… there is to be no communication between the living and the dead,” where does this leave Jesus? He is clearly guilty according to Luke 9:29-31:

And as [Jesus] was praying, the appearance of his countenance was altered, and his raiment became dazzling white. And behold, two men talked with him, Moses and Elijah, who appeared in glory and spoke of his departure, which he was to accomplish at Jerusalem.

According to Deuteronomy 34:5, Moses was dead. And yet Jesus was communicating with him and Elijah about the most important event in human history—the redemption. Obviously, Jesus does not agree with Mr. White.

FIRST CONTACT

There is another point to White’s argument that requires a deeper level of response. Notice, he said, “The only communication with spirit beings that originates with man that is allowed in Scripture is that of prayer to God and He alone.” This point taken alone would not exclude communicating with the dead in any context. It would only exclude such communication if contact originates from the earth dweller.

In one sense, it seems Mr. White, as well as our Protestant friends he represents by his statement, is stuck in an Old Testament mindset. It is true that we do not see Old Covenant faithful initiating prayer to the dearly departed, but this is to be expected because the faithful dead before Christ and the beatific vision afforded by him would not have had the power to either hear or respond to those prayers. Moreover, the Old Covenant People of God did not have the developed understanding of the after-life that only came with the Revelation of Christ.

Jesus Christ introduces a radical development the Old Covenant saints could not have imagined when he clearly initiates the communication with the faithful departed unlike anything we saw in the Old Testament. I say “clearly” because even Protestant Apologist Eric Svendsen seems to see it, though I’m not sure how cognizant he was of the rammifications of this statement he made about the Transfiguration in his book, Evangelical Answers:

The transfiguration was an apocalyptic event choreographed directly by the Son of God to give the apostles a glimpse of his eschatological glory…

If Jesus “choreographed” it, then he initiated it. Some may say, “Well, he’s God, so he can do that.” Yes, he is. But he is also fully man and we are called to imitate him. If Jesus initiated communication with the dead, there is no reason to believe followers of Jesus cannot do the same. This is precisely what we mean as Catholics when we say we “pray to the saints.”

THE BIBLE SAYS SO

The New Testament presents to us very plain examples of the faithful on earth initiating communication with the saints in heaven. First, we have Hebrews 11-12. Chapter 11 gives us what I call the “hall of faith” wherein the lives of many of the Old Testament saints are recounted. Then, the inspired author encourages these to whom he referred earlier as a people who were being persecuted for their faith (10:32-35), to consider that they are “surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses,” encouraging them to “run the race” of faith set before them. Then, beginning in 12:18, he encourages these New Covenant faithful by reminding them that their covenant—the New Covenant—is far superior to the Old:

For you have not come to what may be touched, a blazing fire … darkness … gloom … and the sound of a trumpet, and a voice whose words made the hearers entreat that no further messages be spoken to them…

But you have come to… the city of the living God… and to innumerable angels… and to the assembly of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven… and to… God… and to the spirits of just men made perfect… and to Jesus…

Notice, in the Old Covenant the faithful approached God alone and with trepidation. But in the New Covenant, the faithful have experienced a radical change for the better. “But you have come to … and to … and to … and to.” In the same way we can initiate prayer and in so doing “come to” God and Jesus, we can also “come to” the angels and “the spirits of just men made perfect.” Those would be the saints in heaven. In the fellowship of the saints, we have the aid and encouragement of the whole family of God.

The Book of Revelation gives us an even better description of this communication between heaven and earth:

The twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints … the elders fell down and worshipped (5:8-14).

These “elders” are offering the prayers of the faithful symbolized by incense filtering upward from the earth to heaven. And because they are seen receiving these prayers, we can reasonably conclude they were both directed to these saints in heaven and that they were initiated by the faithful living on earth. We also see this same phenomenon being performed by the angels in Revelation 8:3-4:

And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God.

And these prayers offered to God through the mediation of the angels are answered as symbolized by “thunder” and “lightning” that are then cast upon the earth through those prayers:

Then the angel took the censer and filled it with fire from the altar and threw it on the earth; and there were peals of thunder, loud noises, flashes of lightning, and an earthquake.

The bottom line is this: Both the faithful on earth and our brothers and sisters in heaven (and let’s not forget our “cousins,” the angels) are all acting just as Catholics would expect. Believers on earth are initiating prayers which the saints and angels in heaven are receiving. Is this the necromancy condemned in Deuteronomy and Isaiah? Absolutely not! This is New Testament Christianity.

[DouglasKC]

If one says recklessly as Mr. White said, “… there is to be no communication between the living and the dead,” where does this leave Jesus? He is clearly guilty according to Luke 9:29-31: And as [Jesus] was praying, the appearance of his countenance was altered, and his raiment became dazzling white. And behold, two men talked with him, Moses and Elijah, who appeared in glory and spoke of his departure, which he was to accomplish at Jerusalem. According to Deuteronomy 34:5, Moses was dead. And yet Jesus was communicating with him and Elijah about the most important event in human history—the redemption. Obviously, Jesus does not agree with Mr. White.

There are a number of things that are incorrect about this interpretation:

1. It is a vision given to his disciples.

Mat 17:9 Now as they came down from the mountain, Jesus commanded them, saying, "Tell the vision to no one until the Son of Man is risen from the dead."

2. It is a vision of the future Jesus in his glory, as he would appear in the kingdom:

Mat 17:2 and He was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and His clothes became as white as the light.

Compare to Revelation:

Rev 1:13 and in the midst of the seven lampstands One like the Son of Man, clothed with a garment down to the feet and girded about the chest with a golden band.
Rev 1:14 His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and His eyes like a flame of fire;
Rev 1:15 His feet were like fine brass, as if refined in a furnace, and His voice as the sound of many waters;
Rev 1:16 He had in His right hand seven stars, out of His mouth went a sharp two-edged sword, and His countenance was like the sun shining in its strength.

3. It was a vision given to the disciples of the future kingdom, a vision of the kingdom of God after the saints of God are resurrected. Just before the vision, at the end of Mattthew 16:

Mat 16:27 For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.
Mat 16:28 Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."

Next verse (and remember the original scripture does not have chapters or verses so this verse comes immediately afterwards no break.)

Mat 17:1 Now after six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, led them up on a high mountain by themselves;
Mat 17:2 and He was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and His clothes became as white as the light.

In other words, Christ promised that some would not see death until they saw Christ in his kingdom. Some included Peter, James and John. Six days later this prophecy was fulfilled. Christ gave them a vision of the future resurrection in his kingdom.

So Elijah and Moses were still dead. This wasn't Christ talking to dead people. This was a vision of a glorious future time when the Kingdom of God arrives and all of the saints of the God are resurrected.

[CynicalBear]

>> Also, regarding this part of the scripture you quoted: “...has authority to throw you into hell.” Hell itself is actually destroyed in the end (check out revelation).

Once again the attempts by the deceiver. (I’m referring to Satan, not you cuban leaf) Let’s look at that verse you allude to.

Revelation 20:14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death.

The Greek word for death there is thánatos.

2288 thánatos (derived from 2348 /thnḗskō, "to die") – physical or spiritual death; (figuratively) separation from the life (salvation) of God forever by dying without first experiencing death to self to receive His gift of salvation.

That does NOT mean annihilation or extinction into nothingness.

The word Hades is not the same as “the lake of fire”. Hades is the unseen place where those not saved are until they are cast into “the lake of fire”.

86 hádēs (from 1 /A "not" and idein/eidō, "see") – properly, the "unseen place," referring to the (invisible) realm in which all the dead reside, i.e. the present dwelling place of all the departed (deceased); Hades.

>> It is also fascinating to study what “hell” actually is.<<

Indeed it is. It is also a very sobering study if done thoroughly. There are three words that have been translated “hell”. There is Sheol, Hades, and Ghehenna. Not one of them is “the lake of fire” as seen in Revelation. Sheol is simply the grave. Hades is the holding place for those who have rejected Christ. Ghehenna is an example used for illustrative purposes and was a valley where dead animals and refuse was burned outside of Jerusalem. It continually burned as trash etc was being continually added. The term was used as a visual of what “the lake of fire” would look like.

For those taking solace in the false teaching that those who reject Christ will simply be annihilated into extinction will be bitterly brought to the realization of truth should they choose to reject Christ.

[CynicalBear]

>>Now, I think there is a special fate for Satan and his angels, but since none of us are angels, I read of it not trying to interpret the fate of any men.<<

Matthew 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

You can “think” all you want. You can use all the carnal reasoning you want. God’s word given to the writers by the Holy Spirit shows that what you “think” is irrelevant.

[CynicalBear]

>>In my opinion, you are arguing something we don’t disagree on. I believe their ruination will be unending. Eternal. I believe they will die and “stay dead”. Their death will be unending.<<

Your “opinion” is irrelevant. Scripture describes the fate of those who reject Christ as “unending torture or torment”. I care not how “you see it” or how many hours you spend listening to scripture read to you in English. God’s “personality” also includes justice. What He says He means. “Opinions” and carnal wisdom will lead to “unending torture”.

[dartuser]

I noticed you didn't comment on the text ... I take that as you have no answer.

I recommend a study on the use of “forever and ever” in the bible. It’s kinda interesting. Sometimes it is a very short time.

Posting assertions without proof is bush league. Provide the passage you are talking about where "into the ages of ages" means a short time.

[cuban leaf]

This brings up so many different things. I’ve got to address each one individually.

First, you said, “There are those who teach that hell, the place that the devil and those who do not accept Christ alone as their savior are destined for is simply a place where they are destroyed completely and will no longer exist. They teach that eternal doesn’t mean for ever and ever as we understand it.”

That is actually three things. First, hell: Hell is temporary and, in fact, thrown into the “lake of fire”. Second, “they” may not teach that eternal doesn’t mean forever and ever but I believe eternal means, frankly, permanent. So, when I see the bible say that something lasts forever and ever, that generally means “permanent” (though there are scriptures about when the bible said “forever” something was actually temporary or just a long time). But again, I interpret it to mean their “death” or “destruction” is permanent. It is not reversible.

Then you brought up Matthew 25:46. It is one of the verses I use as well. And as you say, one should consider what eternal punishment actually means. Regarding “eternal”, we are kind of in agreement. I think for the sake of argument that we can settle on “never ending”. Regarding the other word, one definition, as you pointed out, is “punishment”. Most people understand what that word means. Sitting in the corner is punishment. Prison time or the death penalty is also punishment. So, the wages of sin is death, and the punishment of death will be for eternity, never ending. It means you die and stay dead. Notice that I believe there IS eternal punishment as well as eternal life. There is no “both ways” about it. You and I merely disagree on what that punishment is, not regarding how long it lasts.

BTW, you mention that one meaning for punishment is “torment”. Well, throughout the bible, when God punished people, cities and civilizations, it was always very clear. They were not tormented. They were utterly destroyed and stayed that way. In some cases he made it clear that they would also be utterly forgotten – as if they never existed. Nowhere in the OT does God punish by anything resembling torture, UNLESS as a temporary sentence from which someone can return. i.e. torture punishment is used to teach a lesson to the one being tortured. The second death is not done to teach the lost a lesson. It is to remove them from the scene – like the chaff burned up.

Then you use Thess 1:9, to point out the meanings of the word “destruction” as ruin, doom or destruction. Yet you suggest that does not mean annihilation. OK. But I do know that if I destroy my house by burning it down, it has come to ruin and has been annihilated. We don’t want to over parse words here. Oh, and it’s ruin/destruction is permanent - also known as everlasting.

You then brought up Matt 25:41 regarding the everlasting fire and who it is prepared for. I think we have established that you and I agree on the meaning of the word “everlasting”. I also believe the fire will be everlasting. But how would a person have interpreted it on hearing Him say it. If I told you that I was going to throw your wife into an everlasting fire, would you not take that as a threat to kill your wife, rather than that she was going to suffer the pain of burning everlasting? Is the language not plain? Does it not mean that anyone suffering that fate has found their final condition, not to ever be reversed?

Meanwhile, as you say, “Those who trust in Jesus alone for their salvation will enjoy an eternal life of happiness, joy, and peace with Christ. “ On that we strongly agree.

[dartuser]

Ah yes ... I knew the Apocrypha had to come in there somewhere ...

[dartuser]

I also find it noteworthy that the main passage argued is "who can destroy both body and soul in hell" ...

Are you going to appeal to a lexical study that understands the symantic range of 'destroy' in several ways ... like you did for 'eternal?' ...

I suspect not.

[cuban leaf]

Your “opinion” is irrelevant.
Well, technically “all” men’s opinions are irrelevant. What matters is what God has communicated to us, though it is interesting that people can have different opinions on that.

I see death, destruction, annihilation, wiping out, etc. All over the bible, espicially in the OT. And it is God’s punishment for the wicked. The permanence in most cases is also pretty clear. Meanwhile, too many bring up the meaning of literal words in Revelation clearly as symbols to hammer home a position that not only contradicts this attribute of God, but also ignores the constant reference to the final fate of non-believers as being death, destruction, “NOT eternal life”, perish, etc.

And here is the kinda funny part: John 3:16 clearly indicates that one recieves eternal life while the other perishes. Suffering eternal torment is, in fact, an ETERNAL LIFE in torment. John 3:16 precludes that from being the truth. It’s really that simple.

[dartuser]

Another major blunder in the analysis ...

Second, as John Stott rightly points out, "The fire itself is termed ‘eternal’ and ‘unquenchable,’ but it would be very odd if what is thrown into it proves indestructible. Our expectation would be the opposite: it would be consumed for ever, not tormented for ever. Hence it is the smoke (evidence that the fire has done its work) which ‘rises for ever and ever’

The Greek text does nothing to support the notion that the smoke is the main focus here ... for the very next verse is the focus ... the result of the smoke of their torment ... ??

"they have no rest day and night" ...

The assertions and appeals to telelogical arguments instead of sound Biblical exegesis reveals that your position is not just unsound ... its heretical.

You have departed from a Biblical understanding of who God is ... and have substituted a god fashioned to your own liking ...

[dartuser]

My concern over this false teaching is not so much they believe in annihilation ... it is the means by which they come to their position. The basic contention is that God could never punish his creations eternally, since He is merciful He must destroy them rather than make them suffer.

What they fail to understand is that if God is a god of love, then there was no reason for the Lord of Glory to suffer and die in our place. God could have just forgiven us, had mercy on us, and ignored the punishment for our sins. What they have in fact done is completely fashion a god to their own liking ... and the scriptures teach that is the sin of idolatry ... worshiping a god who does not exist.

[cuban leaf]

Posting assertions without proof is bush league.

As I peruse my posts on this thread, I do not understand why you would make that statement in a post to me.

Also, sometimes I don’t quote a particular scripture because I assume I am dealing with folks who are fairly familiar with the bible. In the age of google, biblegateway, blueletterbible and, most importantly, your own personal memory of the Word, it is not really necessary until the heat really gets turned on. At which point I’ll spam ya. :-D

Meanwhile, regarding the subject at hand, I’ll not provide a passage, but a discussion on the subject from here:
http://www.askelm.com/doctrine/d050101.htm

“In the Old Testament the word that is predominantly used for “age” is many times translated as “forever” or “everlasting” when they really should not do so because if you see some of the usages of this word in the Old Testament, it could not possibly be “forever.” In no way could it be that way even when it refers to God. The word does not necessarily mean that at all when it refers to Him in the sense of perpetuity, or forever, or in an ad infinitum sense.

The word in the Old Testament is olam, as we would give it in English characters. This word olam is used almost 500 times in the Old Testament. If you would get a concordance like Wigram’s The Englishman’s Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance of the Old Testament 5 on sale in most religious bookstores today. Look under “forever” and it will tell you that the Hebrew olam is mainly the one that is used in the Old Testament. Then you go to that word olam and you look up all the usages found in the King James Version. What you will find is that it is translated “forever” (about 250 times), sometimes “from everlasting to everlasting,” sometimes “forever and ever” (24 times) and just “everlasting” alone it is translated 60 times.

But it is translated in other contexts very differently. These other contexts show clearly that the word cannot always be used as “forever” which means no termination whatsoever. This is because two times it is translated “of ancient times,” or “of old times,” sometimes “of old.” Sometimes it is translated just simply “old,” or “ancient, “anymore,” “world,” “continuance,” “lasting,” “long time,” “anytime.” Sometimes it is translated simply as “long” and in others it refers in most interesting ways to lengths of time which have various duration of days or years to them.”

After this the article goes on to quote Jonah 2:5–10, where the word olam is used and translated “for ever”. There are lots more at the link.

Bottom line, most Christians in the US get their bible in English. The translation is not perfect. My relationship with my Creator does not depend on the bible, but the bible greatly augments and amplifies it. When a passage seems to contradict the personality of God as I know Him or otherwise described in the bible, I scrutinize the actual greek or hebrew words that were translated into the English words I am reading to see if there may be an error. But the bottom line is that there is scant evidence in the bible to support eternal suffering while the evidence to support eternal annihilation is legion.

BTW, I HATE that the KJV mistranslates the word for “room” or dwelling place to “mansion”. It is peppered throughout the hymnal we use. Grrrr!

[cuban leaf]

I noticed you didn’t comment on the text ... I take that as you have no answer.

---

It’s because someone else already brought up the same text in a previous post and I responded to them.

I’ve been discussing this with people for a few years now. I see the same texts brought up over and over and over.

I also notice the same texts are ignored, over and over and over.

[dartuser]

In the Old Testament the word that is predominantly used for “age” is many times translated as “forever” or “everlasting” when they really should not do so because if you see some of the usages of this word in the Old Testament, it could not possibly be “forever.”

Fine ... that is part of lexical studies ... but when you insist that forever in one context must mean a short time because it could mean short time ... that is where you are performing exegesis ... you are reading into the text that what you what to see instead of what is plainly there.

Look, it doesn't matter to me whether people believe that the ungodly will be poofed ... it is the reason presented. It demonstrates a fundamental error in Biblical understanding of theology proper. It is idolatry.

When confronted with a new theological position (and yes this is relatively new) ... I always ask myself "What theological problem is this new teaching trying to solve?"

In this case I can confidently say there is no theological problem ... there is the false assumption that God, since He is a god of love, would never torture His creations for all eternity.

So as a natural consequence, you must believe that Satan and his angels will be destroyed as well, that they will never endure eternal punishment either. Would you agree?

[cuban leaf]

A couple of things:

First, you brought up “they have no rest day and night” ...

There are plenty of scriptures discussing that. The phrase means that the event has no breaks. The phrase itself does not speak to the length of the event.

Second, and this is the one that really is kinda odd in this thread. You said, “You have departed from a Biblical understanding of who God is ... and have substituted a god fashioned to your own liking ...”

Too many here are personalizing this to mean that if I disagree with them I am departed from a biblical understanding..., when all I’ve really done is disagree with them using the same bible. Note I am not responding in like kind. Nor would I. It’s not the point.

The “good news” part of the message is what saves, not my “opinion” about what happens to the unsaved.

[GonzoII]

"You are building a doctrine on the words of mere men, instead of the God-breathed revelation of scripture...

> But where is the revelation in Scripture that shows the biblical canon?

[dartuser]

The phrase means that the event has no breaks.

You are wrapping yourself around a symantic axel. If "they have no rest day or night" means there are no breaks in their torment ... then the torment will never have a break, therefore, ITS ETERNAL!!

And I suggest you go re-read your own posting ... the reason Pinnock and Russell had a problem with hell was exactly the reason I mentioned, they could not fashion a god in their mind that was moral ... and still just. That is no way to proceed in theological studies.

Christ died needlessly in your theology.

[CynicalBear]

You keep using those carnal humanistic understandings which are not consistent with the meaning of the Greek words I’ve referenced. “Never ending torment” means “it will not end”. Trying to force some meaning into that which causes someone to believe that the torment will at some point end is contrary to the meaning of the Greek words.

>>Then you use Thess 1:9, to point out the meanings of the word “destruction” as ruin, doom or destruction. Yet you suggest that does not mean annihilation.<<

I don’t suggest anything. I gave you the definition and intent of the word that Greek scholars have written. Here it is again and where it can be found.

3639 /ólethros ("ruination") however does not imply "extinction" (annihilation). Rather it emphasizes the consequent loss that goes with the complete "undoing." [http://biblehub.com/greek/3639.htm]

>>I also believe the fire will be everlasting.<<

Once again, it means “never ending”. Neither the fire nor the torment will end.

[Elsie]

I’ve got vehicle repair to do.

Wasting yet MORE time with folks who want to be controlled by those ‘speaking for GOD’ is a VAST waste of my time, it seems.

(The above was approved by the Department of Redundancy Department)

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“> But where is the revelation in Scripture that shows the biblical canon?

..............................

This is of course, a category mistake in your thinking. It is common among romans.

The same God who moved men under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, acted to preserve His inspired Word. It was all God’s sovereignty and power.

By inspiring and preserving HIS authoritative word, the Church has a record of what is TRUE. It is able to make men wise to salvation. It is able to make Christians complete/mature. It is the only firm foundation for judging whether a doctrine is true or not.

The mere words of uninspired men may provide historical context of a zeitgeist during their times, but that is a far cry from what God wants us to know authoritatively.

That a man two hundred years after Christ tells you anything that adds to God’s authoritative Word, tells you little other than his personal opinion. It is based on pagan influence or personal thought, or worse.

For this reason, if God hasn’t inspired and preserved it, you have accepted a man-made foundation for a pagan belief. You then choose to act on it as if it is equal in authority to what God miraculously inspired and preserved.

If it is true, why didn’t HE say so?
If it is true and important, why didn’t HE command it?
If it is true, why is there no record of Apostles teaching it or practicing it.

Against the pagan influences you put forth as justification, is the clear Word of God that tells EVERY BELIEVER to BOLDLY approach the Throne of Grace.

Yet you indicate here that you want to accept something non-Biblical and less than direct access to God the Father.