Praying to the saints/Asking them to pray for us?

[Lord's Servant]

What do you think about praying to the saints or asking them to pray for us ? Is it biblical? Did you think the early church did it? Can the saints in heaven hear us?
What does your church ex. Angilcan,Eastern Orthodox,Roman Catholic,Lutheran, believe in praying to the saints or asking them to pray for us?

 

[truefiction1]

Members of the Church ask saints to pray for them. Not sure when it started as common practice. The Bible states that the prayer of a righteous one is powerful in its effects. The prayers that were requested of saints have been answered in extraordinary ways throughout history and even in present times.

 

[prodromos]

It isn't something that is really attested to in the Scriptures apart from the man who was brought back to life when his body came into contact with the bones of Elisha (2 Kings 13:21), however it is extremely well attested to in the life of the Church over two thousand years. People can vehemently dismiss it as an unbiblical practise but the majority of us will simply smile and wave.

 

[Lord's Servant]

Ah I see then because I heard some people use revelations 5:8 to defend the use of prayer to saints and yes I know the prayer to saints goes back to the church fathers

 

[MrMoe]

What do you think about praying to the saints or asking them to pray for us ? Is it biblical?

It's not biblical because there is no example of it ever being done in the bible.

Did you think the early church did it?

When did Christians first pray to the saints?

The earliest prayer to a saint the author of this article could find was a prayer from the mid-third century, which in context may have been a prayer to Mary.

Can the saints in heaven hear us?

I don't believe they can.

 

[Major1]

Ah I see then because I heard some people use revelations 5:8 to defend the use of prayer to saints and yes I know the prayer to saints goes back to the church fathers

The only thing mentioned on this is in the book of Maccabees which is NOT included in the canon of Scriptures as it is not and has not been considered to be inspired.

The Catholic church grabbed onto that one particular thing and made it what they say it is today.

It does not matter what the RCC says or what I say. What matters is what God says.

1 Tim. 2:5........
"For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus".

That being the Word of God, why would we then pray to those who are dead?

 

[Mountainmike]

A few pertinent issues.
1/ the vehicle for early Christians to learn the deposit of faith ( IE Gods inspired word) was church, handing Down by word of mouth, and letter, paradosis, (tradition. ) the bible did not come from the sky, and sola scriptura is provably false, indeed If scripture was complete why is there no OT reference to the nature of temple worship , and why does Jesus ask all to listen to Moses seat preaching / word of mouth? Why does Paul say " hold true to tradition by word of mouth" and why is the pillar of truth stated by scripture to be the church? ( not scripture)

2/ early Christians clearly did it e.g.
"In this way is he [the true Christian] always pure for prayer. He also prays in the society of angels, as being already of angelic rank, and he is never out of their holy keeping; and though he pray alone, he has the choir of the saints standing with him " clement of alexandria [A.D. 208]

3/ the bible does have something to say : the reference to the choir of saints is there in the bible " the cloud of witnesses" and we know their prayers are effective from the bible " their prayers are their at the altar of god"

4/ those who chose the canon at councils ( you call the New Testament) were vociferous in supporting such prayers, and ephraim eloquent about praying through Mary!. If these people were inspired in choosing the canon, all should consider what They believed it meant.

5/ and Maccabees was in Jesus's Old Testament, the Septuagint, so Jesus thought it was scripture even if Luther tried to remove it, but then luther didn't believe in scripture, he tried to remove books he didn't agree with and added words like " alone"

Repeat.
6/ sola scriptura is self refuting , an unscriptural reformation myth! - so failing to find the practice explicitly in the bible does not exclude it as valid practice.

 

[prodromos]

The only thing mentioned on this is in the book of Maccabees which is NOT included in the canon of Scriptures as it is not and has not been considered to be inspired.

Hi Major1,
I'm just curious to know who you believe wrote the Bible's inspired table of contents?

 

[prodromos]

1 Tim. 2:5........
"For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus".

That being the Word of God, why would we then pray to those who are dead?

For the same reason we pray to those who are alive, unless you believe we should never ask anyone to pray for us on the basis of the above Scripture?

 

[MrMoe]

A few pertinent issues.
1/ the vehicle for early Christians to learn the deposit of faith ( IE Gods inspired word) was church, handing Down by word of mouth, and letter, paradosis, (tradition. ) the bible did not come from the sky, and sola scriptura is provably false, indeed If scripture was complete why is there no OT reference to the nature of temple worship , and why does Jesus ask all to listen to Moses seat preaching / word of mouth? Why does Paul say " hold true to tradition by word of mouth" and why is the pillar of truth stated by scripture to be the church? ( not scripture)

This thread is about praying to/through the saints, not whether sola scriptura is true or not.

2/ early Christians clearly did it e.g.
"In this way is he [the true Christian] always pure for prayer. He also prays in the society of angels, as being already of angelic rank, and he is never out of their holy keeping; and though he pray alone, he has the choir of the saints standing with him " clement of alexandria [A.D. 208]

Where in that quote does it say he prayed to the saints?

3/ the bible does have something to say : the reference to the choir of saints is there in the bible " the cloud of witnesses"

The cloud of witnesses are the people mentioned in the previous chapter. This does not show praying to saints or that they can here us.

and we know their prayers are effective from the bible " their prayers are their at the altar of god"

Who's prayers are there at the alter of God? The saints in heaven or on earth?

4/ those who chose the canon at councils ( you call the New Testament) were vociferous in supporting such prayers, and ephraim eloquent about praying through Mary!. If these people were inspired in choosing the canon, all should consider what They believed it meant.

This sounds like an appeal to authority.

5/ and Maccabees was in Jesus's Old Testament, the Septuagint, so Jesus thought it was scripture

Did you mean inspired scripture? If so then this is a non sequitur argument. It does not follow that because Maccabees was found in the Septuagint, that Jesus thought it was inspired scripture.

even if Luther tried to remove it, but then luther didn't believe in scripture, he tried to remove books he didn't agree with and added words like " alone"

Luther didn't believe in scripture? That's a big smear against Luther's character.
Isn't Maccabees where Antiochus dies three times, three different ways? Could it be that Luther did believe in scripture, just not scripture he thought was uninspired, especially ones that contain such obvious contradictions?

Repeat.
6/ sola scriptura is self refuting , an unscriptural reformation myth! - so failing to find the practice explicitly in the bible does not exclude it as valid practice.

This thread is not about refuting sola scriptura. Not sure why you keep bringing this up.

 

[Mountainmike]

I bring up sola scriptura as a direct rebuttal to those on this thread who dismiss the practice of "asking Saints to pray for them" On the basis( they say) it is not explicit in the bible.

Take major above, and as you seem to do.

The obvious and total rebuttal i used is " where in the bible does it say it has to be in the bible?" And even the bible refutes that claim!

Indeed. Because Christianity was in origin handed down by tradition , we do better to look for (and find) the practice of prayersof saint discussed by early fathers, as I showed.

Your argument on Maccabees fails. If you do not accept the entireity of the Septuagint when Jesus clearly regarded it as THE scriptures of his day, then your only logical further conclusion is that only the verses of Septuagint that Jesus quoted can ever be regarded as scripture , which rules out almost ALL of scripture . A number of books he does not quote from. And so - by your own argument sola scriptura as defined by your bible must fail!

In summary - the early fathers believed in prayers of saints ( as my quote shows) and as did those who decided your bible. That is good enough for me.
And without their authority and inspiration, you cannot regard the canon , i.e. Bible as inspired. You can't have it both ways!

My Comments on Luther - the proponent of sola scriptura, but demonstrable abuser of it ( e.g. Epistle of straw, inserter of " alone", remover of Maccabees ) are spot on. You can't be sola scriptura and then play fast and loose with it.
It is either all inspired or none of it, once councils have spoken , you regard them as inspired or not. Take epistle of James. You cannot pick and choose, as Luther did.

This thread is about praying to/through the saints, not whether sola scriptura is true or not.



Where in that quote does it say he prayed to the saints?



The cloud of witnesses are the people mentioned in the previous chapter. This does not show praying to saints or that they can here us.



Who's prayers are there at the alter of God? The saints in heaven or on earth?



This sounds like an appeal to authority.



Did you mean inspired scripture? If so then this is a non sequitur argument. It does not follow that because Maccabees was found in the Septuagint, that Jesus thought it was inspired scripture.



Luther didn't believe in scripture? That's a big smear against Luther's character.
Isn't Maccabees where Antiochus dies three times, three different ways? Could it be that Luther did believe in scripture, just not scripture he thought was uninspired, especially ones that contain such obvious contradictions?



This thread is not about refuting sola scriptura. Not sure why you keep bringing this up.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I bring up sola scriptura as a direct rebuttal to those on this thread who dismiss the practice of "asking Saints to pray for them" On the basis( they say) it is not explicit in the bible.

Take major above, and as you seem to do.

The obvious and total rebuttal i used is " where in the bible does it say it has to be in the bible?" And even the bible refutes that claim!

Indeed. Because Christianity was in origin handed down by tradition , we do better to look for (and find) the practice of prayersof saint discussed by early fathers, as I showed.

Your argument on Maccabees fails. If you do not accept the entireity of the Septuagint when Jesus clearly regarded it as THE scriptures of his day, then your only logical further conclusion is that only the verses of Septuagint that Jesus quoted can ever be regarded as scripture , which rules out almost ALL of scripture . A number of books he does not quote from. And so - by your own argument sola scriptura as defined by your bible must fail!

In summary - the early fathers believed in prayers of saints ( as my quote shows) and as did those who decided your bible. That is good enough for me.
And without their authority and inspiration, you cannot regard the canon , i.e. Bible as inspired. You can't have it both ways!

My Comments on Luther - the proponent of sola scriptura, but demonstrable abuser of it ( e.g. Epistle of straw, inserter of " alone", remover of Maccabees ) are spot on. You can't be sola scriptura and then play fast and loose with it.
It is either all inspired or none of it, once councils have spoken , you regard them as inspired or not. Take epistle of James. You cannot pick and choose, as Luther did.

Luther, like everyone else; Catholics included, see what can be understood as conflicting statements in Scripture.

Like St. Jerome, Luther felt that the Apocrypha should remain, but not held quite as high as that which we know as the "protestant Bible". Certainly, when one looks at the principal readings in both the old and new Catholic Lectionairys (the same ones as the Confessional Lutherans use BTW; hardly ever would one hear a reading from any of these books, infact, one might hear passages from the Apocrypha more often in our Confessional Lutheran Churches in the Gradulals at certain times of the year, and in a number of hymns at any time of the year. The "protestant Bible" as we know it is a creation of the Anglicans by an act of parliament, not us Lutherans.

It is very easy to pick out a few out of context statements and use them to misrepresent and slander others (recently some Catholics have been doing the same thing to your Pope Francis as well; just as some Catholics have done, and continue to do with Luther).

Truth is that Maccabees shows praying for those who have departed (which, if you have ever been to a Confessional Lutheran Funeral, you would realize), it is not about calling upon them to intercede for us.

Luther was not an idiot, but was a pragmatic realist. Truth is that it is impossible to find any support in Scripture saying that the departed Saints can hear our prayers (even Luther stated that it is possible, but without God telling us directly to do so, we don't know, and our prayers may be in vain); we do know however, that they do continually intercede for us, and all the faithful. Like Luther, those who do comb through Scripture see that we are commanded to pray through Christ.

 

[Mountainmike]

To me, Luther is an enigma.
I really don't understand him.

He preached sola scriptura, but then did take liberties. The epistle of James for one. Inserting "alone" another.

The paradox of luther , that I see, is best seen in his comments on purgatory ,in which he said he believed, but then said he could find not a shred of scriptural evidence for it. Yet Maccabees does reference the practice of praying for dead, which certainly has purgatory overtones or could be used as part of a case for it. So if he respected maccabees, how can he say there was nothing in scripture?

He recognised his own error in empowering the priest hood of believers to interpret scripture when he lamented in later life "every milkmaid now has their own doctrine". As far as I am concerned in essence tradition is what carries the meaning with scripture, which is not uniquely understandable without tradition, and so has led to 1000 schisms ever since.

I did not raise maccabees in the context of praying for intercession of saints, the "cloud of witnesses", the "prayers of the saints there at the altar of god" and many church father writings more pertinent.

And there is my essential comment.
That the faith was inessence handed on by paradosis - tradition - word of mouth. So early writings are useful to see how the first generations considered it. When clement of Alexandria made his comments he clearly considered it established practice, turn of 2nd/early 3rd century.

Alas , with all the persecution ofChristians, it surprises me how much of ECF survived, the gaps in the record of writings on such matters do not surprise me at all.

Luther, like everyone else; Catholics included, see what can be understood as conflicting statements in Scripture.

Like St. Jerome, Luther felt that the Apocrypha should remain, but not held quite as high as that which we know as the "protestant Bible". Certainly, when one looks at the principal readings in both the old and new Catholic Lectionairys (the same ones as the Confessional Lutherans use BTW; hardly ever would one hear a reading from any of these books, infact, one might hear passages from the Apocrypha more often in our Confessional Lutheran Churches in the Gradulals at certain times of the year, and in a number of hymns at any time of the year. The "protestant Bible" as we know it is a creation of the Anglicans by an act of parliament, not us Lutherans.

It is very easy to pick out a few out of context statements and use them to misrepresent and slander others (recently some Catholics have been doing the same thing to your Pope Francis as well; just as some Catholics have done, and continue to do with Luther).

Truth is that Maccabees shows praying for those who have departed (which, if you have ever been to a Confessional Lutheran Funeral, you would realize), it is not about calling upon them to intercede for us.

Luther was not an idiot, but was a pragmatic realist. Truth is that it is impossible to find any support in Scripture saying that the departed Saints can hear our prayers (even Luther stated that it is possible, but without God telling us directly to do so, we don't know, and our prayers may be in vain); we do know however, that they do continually intercede for us, and all the faithful. Like Luther, those who do comb through Scripture see that we are commanded to pray through Christ.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

To me, Luther is an enigma.
I really don't understand him.

He preached sola scriptura, but then did take liberties. The epistle of James for one. Inserting "alone" another.

The paradox of luther , that I see, is best seen in his comments on purgatory ,in which he said he believed, but then said he could find not a shred of scriptural evidence for it. Yet Maccabees does reference the practice of praying for dead, which certainly has purgatory overtones or could be used as part of a case for it. So if he respected maccabees, how can he say there was nothing in scripture?

He recognised his own error in empowering the priest hood of believers to interpret scripture when he lamented in later life "every milkmaid now has their own doctrine". As far as I am concerned in essence tradition is what carries the meaning with scripture, which is not uniquely understandable without tradition, and so has led to 1000 schisms ever since.

I did not raise maccabees in the context of praying for intercession of saints, the "cloud of witnesses", the "prayers of the saints there at the altar of god" and many church father writings more pertinent.

And there is my essential comment.
That the faith was inessence handed on by paradosis - tradition - word of mouth. So early writings are useful to see how the first generations considered it. When clement of Alexandria made his comments he clearly considered it established practice, turn of 2nd/early 3rd century.

Like Luther, the "Doctors and Fathers" of Lutheranism recognized the issues expressed in the "milkmaid" statement; which resulted in what we call the "Lutheran Confessions", "Concordia", and the unaltered 1580 edition of the "Book of Concord"; which defined Geneso (genuine or orthodox Lutheranism); the period of time between about 1580 and 1700 is not known as "The Age of Orthodox" for nothing. Most Lutherans today are not "Confessional"; those Synods that are (mine included) still adhere to the unaltered BoC.

One should be looking to the BoC to explain our theologies rather than musings and random quotes.

Today, only those with no understanding of faith would argue that one does not need a "purging" (purgation) before entering heaven; but not a place of prolonged retribution.

Things that you find vexing regarding Sola Scriptura, remember the concept of Adiaphora; things of indifference; beliefs and practices not supported by Scripture that neither conflict with, nor are forbidden by Scripture may be retained. Things that are explicitly commanded by Scripture must be followed.

We we may pray for the departed, but they are not our middle-men.

 

[Mountainmike]

Of course the difficulty I have with most reformation groups, is twofold.

That in seeking to eliminate the lack of unique interpretation in scripture, they add to it with "articles" (anglican) confessions (various) - and if you take (for example episcopal articles) a massive wedge of "sermons"they are shoring up the deficiencies in sola scriptura, the basic principle is defied by the addition of those uninspired "confessions" "prayer books" "concords" "articles" So defeating the object. So rather than empowering all to interpret scripture, it empowers denominations to add to it with many variations of "confession".

And...
I welcome the fact we both believe in real presence, but only you can answer...this when Luther clearly renounced his source of apostolic succession and authority, did he ipso facto renounce the succession itself, so is a Lutheran Eucharist valid? For you not me to answer.

At least Catholicism is open in adding a well documented catechism which encompasses the teachings handed down from ECF, and councils, and makes no pretence that scripture can stand alone, indeed it specifically states the deposit of faith was handed down by word of mouth and letter, only later did much of it become scripture.

On the final point, I cannot agree.

Let me use an argument reductio ad absurdum. About "silence" in scripture. I do not know if you have noticed but, There is literally nothing in the OT , about the worship practices of the temple. And by the same argument you now use, therefore no worship was mandated since it cannot have fallen from scripture.
Indeed..going one further, about OT analogies Jesus refers to the teaching from moses seat ( we maintain the forerunner of the cathedra of peter) in which clearly the pharisees were teaching truth by paradosis, and Jesus stated because it was said from the seat they had to listen! So fortelling the importance of authority. And the verbal teaching alongside scripture.

Anyway , I doubt we will agree.
But an interesting discussion.

Like Luther, the "Doctors and Fathers" of Lutheranism recognized the issues expressed in the "milkmaid" statement; which resulted in what we call the "Lutheran Confessions", "Concordia", and the unaltered 1580 edition of the "Book of Concord"; which defined Geneso (genuine or orthodox Lutheranism); the period of time between about 1580 and 1700 is not known as "The Age of Orthodox" for nothing. Most Lutherans today are not "Confessional"; those Synods that are (mine included) still adhere to the unaltered BoC.

One should be looking to the BoC to explain our theologies rather than musings and random quotes.

Today, only those with no understanding of faith would argue that one does not need a "purging" (purgation) before entering heaven; but not a place of prolonged retribution.

Things that you find vexing regarding Sola Scriptura, remember the concept of Adiaphora; things of indifference; beliefs and practices not supported by Scripture that neither conflict with, nor are forbidden by Scripture may be retained. Things that are explicitly commanded by Scripture must be followed.

We we may pray for the departed, but they are not our middle-men.

 

[Ffraid]

It's not biblical because there is no example of it ever being done in the bible.

In biblical times, the first generation of saints were still alive.

 

[Major1]

For the same reason we pray to those who are alive, unless you believe we should never ask anyone to pray for us on the basis of the above Scripture?

You are saying you pray to live people?

I do not pray to anyone who is alive my friend. We all need to pray to the Lord Jesus Christ and not to a human being whether he be alive or dead.

 

[Major1]

Hi Major1,
I'm just curious to know who you believe wrote the Bible's inspired table of contents?

Jesus Christ.

Luke 24:25-17.........
"Then He said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?” And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself."

 

[Major1]

Like Luther, the "Doctors and Fathers" of Lutheranism recognized the issues expressed in the "milkmaid" statement; which resulted in what we call the "Lutheran Confessions", "Concordia", and the unaltered 1580 edition of the "Book of Concord"; which defined Geneso (genuine or orthodox Lutheranism); the period of time between about 1580 and 1700 is not known as "The Age of Orthodox" for nothing. Most Lutherans today are not "Confessional"; those Synods that are (mine included) still adhere to the unaltered BoC.

One should be looking to the BoC to explain our theologies rather than musings and random quotes.

Today, only those with no understanding of faith would argue that one does not need a "purging" (purgation) before entering heaven; but not a place of prolonged retribution.

Things that you find vexing regarding Sola Scriptura, remember the concept of Adiaphora; things of indifference; beliefs and practices not supported by Scripture that neither conflict with, nor are forbidden by Scripture may be retained. Things that are explicitly commanded by Scripture must be followed.

We we may pray for the departed, but they are not our middle-men.

What is..... BoC????

 

[Major1]

This thread is about praying to/through the saints, not whether sola scriptura is true or not.



Where in that quote does it say he prayed to the saints?



The cloud of witnesses are the people mentioned in the previous chapter. This does not show praying to saints or that they can here us.



Who's prayers are there at the alter of God? The saints in heaven or on earth?



This sounds like an appeal to authority.



Did you mean inspired scripture? If so then this is a non sequitur argument. It does not follow that because Maccabees was found in the Septuagint, that Jesus thought it was inspired scripture.



Luther didn't believe in scripture? That's a big smear against Luther's character.
Isn't Maccabees where Antiochus dies three times, three different ways? Could it be that Luther did believe in scripture, just not scripture he thought was uninspired, especially ones that contain such obvious contradictions?



This thread is not about refuting sola scriptura. Not sure why you keep bringing this up.

Because without..."Sola Scriptura" we are left with the opinions and agenda's of sinners.