Question about praying to Saints in churches.

[Albion]

No, it cannot.

As has been explained, it can.

Whole households, as referred to in Scripture, virtually cannot be childless.

It is believer's baptism that can be deduced from multiple biblical passages (Matthew 28:19; Acts of the Apostles 2:38; Acts of the Apostles 8:36-38; Acts of the Apostles 16:31-33; Romans 6:3-4). This last one is particularly strong: read it all and actually think about whether you can really say that of a child who is forced to be baptised.

The problem here is that no one is opposed to baptizing those who believe! So all the references in the NT to an adult being baptized do nothing to disprove the baptism of children.

The Bible, I believe, is sufficiently clear to condemn infant baptism.

Show it to us, then.

Let us also not forget that the unbiblical practice of infant baptism gave origin to the unbiblical practice of baptism by aspersion, rather than the biblical practice of baptism by immersion.

And you just got through questioning if baptizing children is following Sola Scriptura? And then you come up with this claim here that has no Scriptural basis??

 

[Albion]

Of course it is and I do reject your Bible alone. The Bible never, ever anywhere says to follow itself alone and no matter how much you fight agaisnt it you can never show any verse that says to follow the Bible alone

...and it also does not say to follow anything else instead. Yet you do.

At least we have the Bible's claim that it's God's word/revelation and that it is of the highest worth. Legends and opinion do not have that weight and the Bible doesn't say that they do, yet your folks make them the equal of the Bible.

That's a MUCH harder claim to substantiate than to trust God's word, which probably explains why opponents of Sola Scriptura seldom try.

 

[prodromos]

You have no proof, and there are other possible explanations, so you are assuming, yes.

Oh? What are the other explanations for the streaming of myrrh from St Demetrios' bones? Regarding proof, it is there in incredible abundance in the Orthodox Church for anyone to see if they wish. I recommend you make a trip to Mt Athos someday when you start wondering if there is more to the Christian faith than you have thus far experienced.

The rest of your denominational strutting and triumphalism doesn't change this simple fact. Not one bit.

The same goes for your condescending remarks, although I'm not sure what was strutting and triumphalist about my posts. I'm simply telling you how it is and you are dismissing it.

 

[prodromos]

I would not dismiss the story itself, which could actually be true — just the idea that it was because of praying to a dead saint that it happened. Indeed, your story does not show that it happened as a result of praying to a saint.

I never said it was the result of praying to the Saints, it was merely an example of how very much alive the Saints are.

Furthermore, my objection (that it is strange that no-one would have asked his name or verified his authority) remains.

They had been asking for a priest to be sent for years, so when a priest arrived they naturally assumed he had been sent by the bishop, plus in the Orthodox Church we simply refer to our priests as "pater" or "father" (which no doubt will send your Protestant mind into apoplectic fits). I don't know why no one thought to ask his name but it is not unreasonable that they didn't since when speaking to a priest we do not usually use their name. I think they were simply so glad to have a priest again that they simply forgot to ask. If I ever learn Romanian, I'll make a point of finding out.

 

[St Faustina]

Do the saints perform miracles for Muslims?

No Saint has ever performed miracles. It is the power of Christ who performs miracles. Similar to exorcisms, it the the power of Christ who expels demons. We ask Saints to pray directly to God because they are already in Heaven with Elijah, Moses and the Apostles who are all Saints, they pray directly in the presence of God. We petition Saints to pray for us because they are fully justified and reached the peak of holiness, their prayers are more efficacious. Asking fellow parishioners or your pastor to pray for you is also encouraged however the prayers of humans on earth can be tainted by unconfessed sins and earthly distractions.

There is more than one definition to the word "pray".

Our prayer to Saints is "to ask or petition" (collins dictionary).

When we or the Saints pray to God it is in the form of "adoration/worshipping God" (collins dictionary)

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

Of course it is and I do reject your Bible alone. The Bible never, ever anywhere says to follow itself alone and no matter how much you fight agaisnt it you can never show any verse that says to follow the Bible alone

Maybe not, but I can show that rejection of that principle has led to contradictions with the Bible. And God cannot contradict himself — which means that, if the Bible was inspired by God, the Catholic Church cannot have been (or Orthodox Church, or whatever church you follow which contradicts the Bible).

Nope mine are from authentic verifiable orthodox Christian of which you reject. St. Paul had this to say about those like you who bring a strange and new gospel Galatians 1:8

I literally laughed so hard for 10–15 seconds when I read that, because that verse talks about people like you, not me! That is an excellent verse I like to use to show what Paul would tell Catholics if he were alive today (by the way, I'm also pretty sure that he would not like to hear you call him ‘Saint Paul’).

Allow me to explain. Just read the entire letter to the Galatians, especially the first three chapters, and see what kind of people he is really talking about. If you pay attention, you will see that he is harshly criticising those who believe in salvation by works! This is what he explains in Galatians 2-3. Paul writes, ‘We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no-one will be justified.’ (Galatians 2:15-16) He goes on: ‘You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn just one thing from you: did you receive the Spirit by works of the law, or by believing what you have heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?’ (Galatians 3:1-3) He goes on, but I am now too tired to keep on writing. Read it for yourself!

So, as you can see from reading the context (which is the entire letter), what Paul writes in Galatians 1:6-9, accusing the Galatians of following ‘a different gospel — which is really no gospel at all’, is directed at those who believe in salvation by works (that is, Catholics, Orthodoxes and all those following similar doctrines). The ‘Gospel of Christ’ (Galatians 1:7) requires salvation by faith alone (Galatians 2:16), which you reject!

Galatians 1:8 is written about people like you, not me! It is ridiculous that you should use it against me! The Letter to the Galatians is probably the best book in the whole Bible to fly straight in the face of the Catholic understanding of salvation by works! It is probably the best book to defend salvation by faith alone (Ephesians would be the second best, I think). It is ridiculous that you should use it against me!

Now seriously: why do you think Paul was using it to accuse people like me? What do I believe in that contradicts Paul's beliefs?

 

[St Faustina]

None of them earlier than the 4th century. Since we know that the Fathers are not infallible, what evidence do we have that this doctrine is truly divine and not man-made (other than, for you, Holy Tradition)? That's the whole point of this thread.

The Fathers were infallible when formulating matters of doctrine and faith. The Holy Spirit guided them when they formulated doctrine. Non-Catholics also believe that they and/or their Church are infallible when formulating doctrines. When christians or any church reads the bible and decides for themselves that this is what this verse means then they believe they are being guided by the holy spirit and are therefore "infallible" and yet why are there 50000+ denominations all teaching "different truths" and claiming infallibility? The Holy Spirit can never be the author of confusion.

Are all of these interpretations correct? Some match, others are poles apart. Some allow divorce, others don't. etc etc. Yet all claim to be teaching Truth and correct doctrine. Are all of them correct? Of course not.

I agree to guard against manmade tradition (small t) however Sacred Tradition (capital T) is not man-made, it is divine. This is the Traditions that Christ gave the apostles; Baptism (Christ). Eucharist (Christ). Reconciliation (Christ). etc There was no Bible, they taught orally and by showing early christians what Sacred Traditions Christ had taught them.

Read Timothy, Paul mentions twice for them to be careful to follow the traditions of the church and orders them to follow the traditions on the third occasion.

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

As has been explained, it can.

As has been explained, it cannot.

Whole households, as referred to in Scripture, virtually cannot be childless.

Yes, they can. I have many friends about my age who are either single children or the youngest of their siblings: those households have no children too young so as to be incapable of comprehending baptism.

The problem here is that no one is opposed to baptizing those who believe! So all the references in the NT to an adult being baptized do nothing to disprove the baptism of children.

Yes, they do, because they show what baptism is all about: faith! Jesus instructs his disciples to make more disciples and baptise them. Baptism is a sign that you follow Jesus, not that you happened to be born in a Christian/pseudo-Christian household.

Show it to us, then.

I have. The Bible teaches baptism following faith, and it never condones forcing or coercing baptism unto anyone.

And you just got through questioning if baptizing children is following Sola Scriptura? And then you come up with this claim here that has no Scriptural basis??

Baptism by immersion has got lots of scriptural support, whilst baptism by aspersion/sprinkling/pouring has got none.

Romans 6:4 illustrates baptism like this: ‘We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.’ So, if baptism symbolises death and burial, as it happened to Christ, followed by a raising or resurrection, just as it happened to Jesus, followed by a new life (2 Corinthians 5:17), then immersion is the method that better illustrates this process, not sprinkling.

Furthermore, we know that this was how the apostles baptised, because we are told that those who were baptised came up out of the water (e.g., Matthew 3:16, Acts of the Apostles 8:39), which would only make sense in case of an immersion.

And, of course, the actual word ‘baptise’ originally meant ‘to submerge in water’ excluding from its very definition the idea of pouring or sprinkling water.

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

The Fathers were infallible when formulating matters of doctrine and faith.

No, they were not.

The Holy Spirit guided them when they formulated doctrine.

No, he did not — otherwise, they would not have written anything in contradiction with the Bible.

Non-Catholics also believe that they and/or their Church are infallible when formulating doctrines.

Generally, no, they do not. Save perhaps a few exceptions, Protestants generally recognise that they are fallible and may be wrong (unlike Catholics, who are so proud as to believe they are infallible). However, when the Bible is clear about something, there is no doubt about it.

When christians or any church reads the bible and decides for themselves that this is what this verse means then they believe they are being guided by the holy spirit and are therefore "infallible" and yet why are there 50000+ denominations all teaching "different truths" and claiming infallibility? The Holy Spirit can never be the author of confusion.

There are not 50 000 Protestant denominations. There are a handful of them, but not nearly that many.

Protestant denominations do not teach ‘different truths’. They disagree on a few minor issues, but nothing very significant. Over all, they agree on much, much more than they disagree with. And one thing they all agree on is that the Catholic church is wrong. Unlike what Catholics like to depict, Protestants are not a bunch of different groups, each believing their own different stuff; instead, Protestants are united against the Catholic Church. There is much, much more animosity between Protestants and Catholics than amongst all Protestant denominations. Protestants have slight disagreements, but this is nothing compared to the massive, abysmal differences between Catholics and Protestants.

Are all of these interpretations correct? Some match, others are poles apart. Some allow divorce, others don't. etc etc. Yet all claim to be teaching Truth and correct doctrine. Are all of them correct? Of course not.

In general, the ‘doctrines’ over which there are disagreements are relatively minor doctrines, which are not essential in any way. Furthermore, these divergences are by no means a result of the fact that the Bible presents a complicated message; instead, the Bible is abundantly clear in everything, but some people (either deliberately or subconsciously) end up misinterpreting the Bible's message, in spite of its clarity. The true doctrine can be apprehended from a simple approach to the Bible, without any preconceived ideas.

I agree to guard against manmade tradition (small t) however Sacred Tradition (capital T) is not man-made, it is divine. This is the Traditions that Christ gave the apostles; Baptism (Christ). Eucharist (Christ). Reconciliation (Christ). etc There was no Bible, they taught orally and by showing early christians what Sacred Traditions Christ had taught them.

Read Timothy, Paul mentions twice for them to be careful to follow the traditions of the church and orders them to follow the traditions on the third occasion.

Those traditions did not refer to the Catholic Church's ‘Holy Tradition’. The tradition of the Catholics contradicts the Bible, which is not the case of the traditions of the apostles.

 

[Albion]

I have. The Bible teaches baptism following faith, and it never condones forcing or coercing baptism unto anyone.

"Forcing." Now you sound like those people who insist that God can't save whomever he chooses or else he'd be "forcing" some people against their will to be saved.

Baptism by immersion has got lots of scriptural support, whilst baptism by aspersion/sprinkling/pouring has got none.

Not really. The argument for immersion is quite weak, really.

Furthermore, we know that this was how the apostles baptised, because we are told that those who were baptised came up out of the water (e.g., Matthew 3:16, Acts of the Apostles 8:39), which would only make sense in case of an immersion.

Except that you're reading it wrong. In both of those instances, it means to come out from the water, and if it was a river or pool, that would mean walking up the bank. Read the following with that in mind: "...went up straightway from the water" and you'll see it in a different light.

And, of course, the actual word ‘baptise’ originally meant ‘to submerge in water’

or to dip or wash or several other things.

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

"Forcing." Now you sound like those people who insist that God can't save whomever he chooses or else he'd be "forcing" some people against their will to be saved.

I do not see how. I believe in predestination and unconditional election — that God chose the elect because of his unconditional will. I believe in five-point Calvinism.

However, I fail to see how that has anything to do with the issue at hand. It is one thing for God to choose whom he wants to save, based on his unfathomable, inscrutable and mysterious will; it is another thing for us to select young babies to be baptised. God has the right to choose whom he wishes to save; we do not have the right to force baptism unto anyone.

Besides, baptism does not even save anyone, so it is meaningless to baptise babies, which further renders your analogy pointless. Although God can ‘force’ people to be saved, we cannot force anyone to be baptised.

Not really. The argument for immersion is quite weak, really.

No, it is not.

Except that you're reading it wrong. In both of those instances, it means to come out from the water, and if it was a river or pool, that would mean walking up the bank. Read the following with that in mind: "...went up straightway from the water" and you'll see it in a different light.

The verses say ‘to come up out of the water’. The actions of going up and out are related. Clearly, they performed baptism by immersion, or this comment would make little sense.

Besides, why would they have to go to a river in order to be baptised if it really were by sprinkling? No-one has to be in water in order to be sprinkled! John 3:23 also says that John baptised at Aenon because there was ‘plenty of water’ there. Evidently, not that much water was needed for baptism by sprinkling. These passages show that baptism is to be by immersion in water.

Therefore, your idea that it simply just meant ‘to walk up the bank and out of the river/pool’ is irrelevant when we consider the preposition ‘up’ and the simple fact that they did not have to be in water for sprinkling.

or to dip or wash or several other things.

‘Dip’ is the same as ‘submerge’; ‘wash’ is part of what happens with submerging. Primarily, the word still means ‘to submerge’.

 

[Wgw]

Oh? What are the other explanations for the streaming of myrrh from St Demetrios' bones? Regarding proof, it is there in incredible abundance in the Orthodox Church for anyone to see if they wish. I recommend you make a trip to Mt Athos someday when you start wondering if there is more to the Christian faith than you have thus far experienced.

The same goes for your condescending remarks, although I'm not sure what was strutting and triumphalist about my posts. I'm simply telling you how it is and you are dismissing it.

Several Orthodox saints relics are myrhh-streaming.

 

[Wgw]

Wow! Do you really expect me to believe that a priest just came to a village and none of the villagers ever cared to ask his name or to verify his authority? Wow! Sounds like a pretty made up story.

One of the nice things about being Orthodox is that it is not uncommon for our departed saints to be involved inincidents of this sort. In fact, there are reputable reports of bilocation on the part of St. John Maximovitch of Shanghai and San Francisco while he was still alive. Also St. John of Kronstadt.

The incident in Romania was epic but not altogether shocking.

 

[Wgw]

It would not be the first time that a massive load of people would be deceived by such a lie. Even the Bible predicts such events, like false messiahs (Matthew 24:5). Another example could be wrong predictions of dates for apocalyptic events (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events). Therefore, saying that a massive amount of people believe in something is not sufficient to prove that it is true — that is an ad populum fallacy.

No, however, the interesting fact remains this incident did actually transpire. What is more, St. Nectarios met the criteria for not being anathema under Galatians 1:8

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

One of the nice things about being Orthodox is that it is not uncommon for our departed saints to be involved inincidents of this sort. In fact, there are reputable reports of bilocation on the part of St. John Maximovitch of Shanghai and San Francisco while he was still alive. Also St. John of Kronstadt.

The incident in Romania was epic but not altogether shocking.

Well, whatever! I really do not care, and I still cannot see how this has got anything to do with praying to the saints.

No, however, the interesting fact remains this incident did actually transpire. What is more, St. Nectarios met the criteria for not being anathema under Galatians 1:8

Really? Did he believe in salvation by faith alone? Because, if not, then he is anathema, as Paul shows in the letter to the Galatians (see post #226).

 

[Albion]

I do not see how.

Well, it just sounds similar. You know, talking about being forced, as though something that's either helpful or benign is actually something the recipient dreads!

However, I fail to see how that has anything to do with the issue at hand. It is one thing for God to choose whom he wants to save, based on his unfathomable, inscrutable and mysterious will; it is another thing for us to select young babies to be baptised.

That sounds as though you think that to be baptized as an infant would somehow obligate God to save such a person! And if that's not the case, these still are not random people...they're the children of believers, by definition.

God has the right to choose whom he wishes to save; we do not have the right to force baptism unto anyone.

Now we have an additional problem--misperceptions about what Baptism accomplishes and/or does not. However, that's not the topic of this thread, so I suggest we drop it.

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

Well, it just sounds similar. You know, talking about being forced as though the recipient of something that's either helpful or benign is actually something they dread.

How is baptism helpful or benign?

That sounds as though you think that to be baptized as an infant would somehow obligate God to save such a person! And if that's not the case, these are not random people...they're the children of believers, by definition.

Now we have an additional problem--misperceptions about what Baptism accomplishes and/or does not. However, that's not the topic of this thread, so I suggest we drop it.

Perhaps. You do understand that baptism is not necessary for salvation, do you not?

I am so glad that I was not baptised as a child! If my parents had told me, ‘You were baptised as a child’, I would have been like, ‘Ah… Er… OK… Yeah… That's, er… That's cool… Yeah… OK…’. It would not be nearly as interesting as it actually happened.

 

[Charlie7399]

That approach does not sound like Sola Scriptura, but rather like Prima Sriptura (I'm not sure this term exists, though) — it sounds like you're just saying ‘We are guided primarily by Scripture and secondarily by other things’, rather than ‘We are guided solely by Scripture’. The Bible, I believe, is sufficiently clear to condemn infant baptism.

Well, you said it quite rightly - that is what you believe, innit? Let's not get confused about the meaning of Sola Scriptura. It simply means that the Bible is the only infallible source of doctrine. I'm talking about the interpretation of doctrine here, and in the case of infant baptism not only can we deduct it from Scripture (which is what makes it true), we also have the unanimous support of the whole Church for a whopping 1500 years. On itself that doesn't mean anything (remember the other guy said the same thing about praying to saints), but it does help to validate a certain interpretation of Scripture, especially when you have extremely early sources like Irenaeus. Only Scripture can be used to determine doctrine, but that doesn't mean we can't use anything else to help interpret it.

And, for the last time, if you read the text a certain way you CAN deduct the teaching from Scripture. I'm amazed you're still arguing against it. We don't care about how you read the texts we mentioned - it can be read both ways. That's why we look to the early Church, to see what was their practice, because it almost certainly matches the one passed on by the Apostles.

The Fathers were infallible when formulating matters of doctrine and faith.

That's what you believe, not all of us. We do believe that any teaching unanimously accepted by the whole Church is binding, as long as it can be traced to the Apostles. Since the only source we have for Apostolic teaching is the Bible, there you go.

Read Timothy, Paul mentions twice for them to be careful to follow the traditions of the church and orders them to follow the traditions on the third occasion.

I don't think Papal Infallibility was one of the traditions mentioned, for example, since it only started appearing in the 13th (!) century. We agree that any tradition passed by the Apostles is valid. We don't agree on how to find out which traditions are apostolic and which ones are not. Considering the example I just mentioned, I'd rather stick with my way for now.

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

Well, you said it quite rightly - that is what you believe, innit? Let's not get confused about the meaning of Sola Scriptura. It simply means that the Bible is the only infallible source of doctrine. I'm talking about the interpretation of doctrine here, and in the case of infant baptism not only can we deduct it from Scripture (which is what makes it true), we also have the unanimous support of the whole Church for a whopping 1500 years. On itself that doesn't mean anything (remember the other guy said the same thing about praying to saints), but it does help to validate a certain interpretation of Scripture, especially when you have extremely early sources like Irenaeus. Only Scripture can be used to determine doctrine, but that doesn't mean we can't use anything else to help interpret it.

Granted, except for the part where you say that infant baptism can be deducted from Scripture.

And, for the last time, if you read the text a certain way you CAN deduct the teaching from Scripture. I'm amazed you're still arguing against it. We don't care about how you read the texts we mentioned - it can be read both ways. That's why we look to the early Church, to see what was their practice, because it almost certainly matches the one passed on by the Apostles. […]

No, it cannot. Not only does Acts of the Apostles 16:31-33 simply not mention kids, but also it would contradict the purpose of baptism: which is personal conversion to Christianity and discipleship of Jesus — it symbolises death and resurrection, because we (Christians) are baptised in his death and resurrection (Romans 6:3-4; Colossians 2:12). This is the clear teaching of Scripture: baptism is a sign of faith, not that you happened to be born in the midst of Christians.

Furthermore, as you have admitted, the fact that the early church practised infant baptism does not make it acceptable. The Bible shows that baptism is by faith, not luck or randomness.

 

[Charlie7399]

No, it cannot. Not only does Acts of the Apostles 16:31-33 simply not mention kids, but also it would contradict the purpose of baptism: which is personal conversion to Christianity and discipleship of Jesus — it symbolises death and resurrection, because we (Christians) are baptised in his death and resurrection (Romans 6:3-4; Colossians 2:12). This is the clear teaching of Scripture: baptism is a sign of faith, not that you happened to be born in the midst of Christians.

Furthermore, as you have admitted, the fact that the early church practised infant baptism does not make it acceptable. The Bible shows that baptism is by faith, not luck or randomness.

Alright, I'm done with you. We can't have a discussion if you don't understand that different interpretations can be applied to the same text. All of my points were clearly stated, and I'll just keep repeating myself if this goes any further. No hard feelings against you personally, but that's enough for me. I'm still adamant on my beliefs, and it's a shame you can't even try to understand them. God bless.