Question about praying to Saints in churches.

[The Portuguese Baptist]

What was posted on a few of the other replies is that if it is not in the Bible then it is against or opposed to the Bible.
Something is opposed or against the Bible if the Bible specifically teaches something opposite to, or specifically forbids something.

For instance if the Bible were to forbid infant Baptism, then Infant Baptism would be against the Bible.

OK.

There is no passage of Scripture that forbids Infant Baptism.

Actually, there is. The Bible clearly teaches that baptism follows faith. Those who are to be baptised are those who have believed in Jesus Christ. We read this in Matthew 28:19-20, when Jesus says, ‘Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.’ Evidently, this teaches that baptism is associated with discipleship. Jesus wants his disciples to be baptised — not their babies. Obviously, a baby cannot believe and make a conscious decision to be a disciple, so this precludes him from being baptised. Other passages talk about baptism following faith — namely, Acts of the Apostles 2:38, Acts of the Apostles 2:41, Acts of the Apostles 8:36-38 and Acts of the Apostles 16:31-33. Never in the New Testament is infant baptism taught or performed.

But, of course, you may be thinking, ‘But the Bible never actually explicitly forbids infant baptism.’ However, there are many things which the Bible never explicitly forbids, but which we would all agree that are biblically incorrect by studying what the Bible teaches about it. For example, the Bible doesn't really say that it is wrong for children to have sex; however, if we study what the Bible teaches about sex, we will see that it is only for married couples; and, if we study what the Bible teaches about marriage, we will see that it requires responsibility; obviously, children are unable to bear heavy responsibility, which means they cannot get married, which means they cannot have sex. In another example, the Bible never really condemns polygamy; however, if we study what the Bible says about marriage, we can see that it teaches that marriage is to be between one man and one woman; besides, we can also see that, whenever polygamy would occur in the Bible, things would always go wrong; therefore, we can safely conclude that God does not agree with polygamy: it just doesn't work. Similarly, by studying the principles that the Bible teaches regarding baptism, we can see that it cannot apply to children.

There are several that state that whole families were Baptized which would include any infants. Acts 26:32-33 and 1 Cor. 1:16

That is pure speculation. None of those texts say that the households mentioned included any infants. It is quite possible that the youngest son or daughter of those households was already a teenager, which would mean that he or she would already be in a good age to decide to become a Christian. That those households included any babies is pure speculation; that these passages teach infant baptism is going beyond the text. (By the way, I believe you meant Acts 16, not Acts 26.)

The Scriptures in which Paul compares circumcision to Baptism, make Baptism the new circumcision and in the Old Testament infants were circumcised on the 8th day after birth to enter into the family of God.

I am not aware of any such passages. I have never found any passage which says that baptism ought to replace circumcision, nor that baptism is a sign of the New Covenant. Instead, the New Testament teaches something different: that it is the cup which is the New Covenant in Jesus' blood (Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25) — not baptism.

Besides, if baptism really were supposed to replace the circumcision, then, your reasoning goes, it would have to be performed under the same circumstances — which is why you baptise babies, because babies were circumcised. However, if it really has to be performed under the same circumstances, there are two things you are doing wrong: 1) you have to baptise babies exactly eight days after their birth, because that was what happened with the circumcision; and 2) you can only baptise male babies, not females, since only males were circumcised, not females. Therefore, if you insist that baptism replaces the circumcision and that it has to be performed to babies, in accordance with circumcision, you must also require its performance exactly eight days after birth, and also restrict its performance to males.

Besides, it is also ridiculous to baptise someone who may quite possibly walk away from the faith: what would baptism have meant for that person?

 

[Albion]

OK.

Actually, there is. The Bible clearly teaches that baptism follows faith.

The problem is that there is also an indication that infants or small children were, nevertheless, baptized. All the instances of "talk" about baptism that you cited as evidence of believer's baptism are addressed to those people who were of mature age so, of course, a profession of faith would be essential in their case, just as with an adult coming to Christ today. Had the Apostles been preaching to children, they presumably would have addressed the issue differently.

Never in the New Testament is infant baptism taught or performed.

With this statement, however, you go one step further and it's not accurate.

Besides, it is also ridiculous to baptise someone who may quite possibly walk away from the faith: what would baptism have meant for that person?

But that's exactly what we do with any adult whom we baptize. Churches that baptise only adults are constantly being asked for rebaptisms from those who fell away after their baptisms only to have a change of heart later on, and then there are those who just fall away.

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

The problem is that there is also an indication that infants or small children were, nevertheless, baptized.

No, there is not. Otherwise, prove me wrong.

All the instances of "talk" about baptism that you cited as evidence of believer's baptism are addressed to those people who were of mature age so, of course, a profession of faith would be essential in their case, just as with an adult coming to Christ today.

Yes, it is essential. But you say that, for an adult to be baptised, he must give a profession of faith, but that, for a child to be baptised, he has no right to decide — this implies an incongruence regarding baptism. After all, what is baptism? Why is baptism a choice and an act of faith for adults, but obligatory for infants? The fact that you use this double standard means that you do not understand the impact and the significance of baptism. If it were true, you would be creating a double significance for baptism — that is: for adults, an act of faith; for children, an act of choice by the parents —, which the Bible never teaches. Indeed, the Bible teaches baptism solely as an act of faith, not as imposed by parents.

As I have shown, the Bible clearly teaches that baptism comes after faith. The Catholic understanding of baptism is completely unbiblical.

Had the Apostles been preaching to children, they presumably would have addressed the issue differently.

That is pure speculation! You must make a doctrine upon what the Bible says, not upon what you think the Bible would have said if it had touched a certain issue...

Three things are certain: the Bible teaches baptism following faith, and children cannot have faith; the Bible never teaches baptising children; and the Bible never records any baptising of children. Any of these three arguments should suffice to bring down the theory of infant baptism — with all three, my case is made stronger.

With this statement, however, you go one step further and it's not accurate.

Yes, it is accurate. The New Testament never shows children being baptised.

But that's exactly what we do with any adult whom we baptize. Churches that baptise only adults are constantly being asked for rebaptisms from those who fell away after their baptisms only to have a change of heart later on, and then there are those who just fall away.

Adults who ask to be baptised again, after having been baptised as adults, fail to understand the true meaning and purpose of baptism. However, I fail to see how this has got anything to do with the issue at hand. My point was that, even if an adult walks away after having been baptised as an adult, he at least had chosen to be baptised and we had no way to know he would leave; however, if someone walks away after having been baptised as a child, he never chose to be baptised and we knew that he could very well leave — and, even if he would not leave, baptism would not have meant anything for him because he never chose to be baptised.

 

[Albion]

No, there is not. Otherwise, prove me wrong.

It's not convincing to argue that "whole households" did not include children. And in the absence of anything in the NT that says a word against baptizing whole families, this is sufficient evidence.

Yes, it is essential. But you say that, for an adult to be baptised, he must give a profession of faith, but that, for a child to be baptised, he has no right to decide — this implies an incongruence regarding baptism.

No, it only implies that a sponsor is needed.

After all, what is baptism? Why is baptism a choice and an act of faith for adults, but obligatory for infants?

Who said anything about it being any more or less "obligatory" for children than for adults?

The fact that you use this double standard means that you do not understand the impact and the significance of baptism.

The fact that your point depends upon inventing a double standard in order to assign it to me 'means that you' don't have a very good argument. It is, however, the standard Baptist POV that stands against almost all the rest of Christianity, so I don't mind too much, my friend.

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

It's not convincing to argue that "whole households" did not include children. And in the absence of anything in the NT that says a word against baptizing whole families, this is sufficient evidence.

No, it is not sufficient evidence. Again, the text does not tell us that the families in question had any young children. You cannot argue that the fact that they baptised entire households means that children should be baptised — that is going beyond the text, since the text does not say it. Surely you know households where no young children live!

Do not forget that salvation is attained for individuals, not entire households. Surely you know Christians who live in households where not all are Christians!

No, it only implies that a sponsor is needed.

Where do you find the idea of a ‘sponsor’ in the Bible?

Who said anything about it being any more or less "obligatory" for children than for adults?

Well, if you force children to be baptised regardless of their will but allow adults to choose, then you are, by definition, making baptism obligatory for children and permissible for adults.

The fact that your point depends upon inventing a double standard in order to assign it to me 'means that you' don't have a very good argument.

The double standard is evident: you make baptism a voluntary act of faith for adults, but a coerced act for children. An adult can proclaim his desire to be or to not be baptised, and either you baptise him or not accordingly; a child cannot express such a desire, but you force him to be baptised nonetheless, even though you know he may not want it. Never does the Bible encourage forcing baptism unto anyone.

It is, however, the standard Baptist POV that stands against almost all the rest of Christianity, so I don't mind too much, my friend.

It depends on what you consider ‘almost all the rest of Christianity’. If, indeed, Baptists are the only ones who believe that baptism: 1) is to be by immersion; 2) cannot be done to infants; and 3) is not necessary for salvation, but rather an act of obedience; — if they really are the only ones who believe in these things, then it just simply makes me sad to see these falsities in the remaining denominations; furthermore, it also means that I am to limit my girlfriend-searching process to Baptist churches (which I already do anyway, much to my disappointment — but that's a story for another time). I am glad to know, nevertheless, that Got Questions Ministries (gotquestions.org — a website I often use), a non-denominational ministry, agrees with me in these three things, which means that the picture is not really that bad after all.

Besides, even if we are a minority, do not forget that argumentum ad populum is still a logical fallacy.

 

[Albion]

This isn't any longer about praying to saints, is it?

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

This isn't any longer about praying to saints, is it?

You're right, it isn't quite... However, it has hardly been about that ever since post #56 or so. After that, we have practically only been discussing Sola Scriptura. (sigh) Anyway, I just hope the OP has had his question answered in a useful manner.

 

[Tangible]

The reasons why the invocation of the saints is condemned in our Lutheran Confessions is simply because there is no word of scripture that promises that the saints in heaven are aware of events on earth or can can hear our speech or thoughts. Also, in Scripture, true prayer, like true worship, is always and only addressed to God.

We Lutherans, in order to promote reliability, certainty and faithfulness, look for three things in Scripture to establish godly practice: A command, a promise, and an example. In Scripture there is no command to pray to or through anyone but the Triune God, no promise that prayers to or through the saints in heaven are effective or acceptable, and no example in Scripture (in the homologoumena anyway) of anyone praying to a departed saint in a way that is honoring to God and with God's blessing.

However, we ardently confess with Holy Scripture that the saints in heaven do pray for the Church, and as they have left behind their mortal taint of sin, it is safe to assume that the prayers of these righteous ones do avail much.

"Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death" is problematic for us. However, this can be made scriptural by the simple addition of one letter, indicating a change of grammatical person. "Holy Mary, Mother of God, prays for us sinners now and at the hour of our death." There. Fixed.

 

[prodromos]

You're right, it isn't quite... However, it has hardly been about that ever since post #56 or so. After that, we have practically only been discussing Sola Scriptura. (sigh) Anyway, I just hope the OP has had his question answered in a useful manner.

I have made a couple of posts on topic, but no one seems willing to respond to them

 

[St Faustina]

Those Saints deemed worthy and who have passed are physically dead but spiritually Alive in Christ. Moses and Elijah who were long dead appear with Christ to the disciples on the Mount of Transfiguration (Matt. 17:3).

What God has forbidden is necromantic practice of conjuring up spirits (e.g. seances).

Not only do those in heaven pray with us, they also pray for us. Also, those in heaven who offer to God our prayers aren’t just angels, but humans as well. John sees that "the twenty-four elders [the leaders of the people of God in heaven] fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints" (Rev. 5:8). The simple fact is, as this passage shows: The saints in heaven offer to God the prayers of the saints on earth.

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

[...] Not only do those in heaven pray with us, they also pray for us. Also, those in heaven who offer to God our prayers aren’t just angels, but humans as well. John sees that "the twenty-four elders [the leaders of the people of God in heaven] fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints" (Rev. 5:8). The simple fact is, as this passage shows: The saints in heaven offer to God the prayers of the saints on earth.

That is a weird passage to try to justify such a ridiculous doctrine... Do you realise that Revelation talks about end-times events, not doctrines for Christian behaviour? And why do you say that the 24 elders are ‘leaders of God's people in Heaven’? Besides, even in that verse, to whom are the prayers offered? Are they not offered to God? Then, why should you pray to saints? Again, you will not find a biblical passage that tells you to pray to dead people.

 

[St Faustina]

That is a weird passage to try to justify such a ridiculous doctrine... Do you realise that Revelation talks about end-times events, not doctrines for Christian behaviour? And why do you say that the 24 elders are ‘leaders of God's people in Heaven’? Besides, even in that verse, to whom are the prayers offered? Are they not offered to God? Then, why should you pray to saints? Again, you will not find a biblical passage that tells you to pray to dead people.

What makes you think they are spiritually dead? We are more than just a physical body. We house a spiritual self commonly referred to as the soul. The Saints who have passed on are very much alive in Christ. Moses and Elijah who were long dead appear with Christ to the disciples on the Mount of Transfiguration (Matt. 17:3).

 

[Charlie7399]

Those Saints deemed worthy and who have passed are physically dead but spiritually Alive in Christ. Moses and Elijah who were long dead appear with Christ to the disciples on the Mount of Transfiguration (Matt. 17:3).

What God has forbidden is necromantic practice of conjuring up spirits (e.g. seances).

Not only do those in heaven pray with us, they also pray for us. Also, those in heaven who offer to God our prayers aren’t just angels, but humans as well. John sees that "the twenty-four elders [the leaders of the people of God in heaven] fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints" (Rev. 5:8). The simple fact is, as this passage shows: The saints in heaven offer to God the prayers of the saints on earth.

We all agree that the saints in heaven pray for the saints on earth, but there is no biblical evidence for any sort of communication between the two groups. Using a highly symbolic book like Revelation won't do, especially if you're trying to read existing doctrine into it.

 

[St Faustina]

There is no disconnect between Heaven and Earth for christians. We are in constant communication via prayer, songs of praise and worship i.e. the Mass. Our Lord, Our Lady and Guardian Angels visit us. Not even death can part us from the Body of Christ . Moses and Elijah were deemed worthy to be assumed into Heaven, we believe the Apostles and Our Lady are also deemed worthy.

Matthew 22: 31-32: And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God, `I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not God of the dead, but of the living."

 

[St Faustina]

We all agree that the saints in heaven pray for the saints on earth, but there is no biblical evidence for any sort of communication between the two groups. Using a highly symbolic book like Revelation won't do, especially if you're trying to read existing doctrine into it.

I quoted Matthew as well. Two separate verses. Why won't Revelation do? Nowhere does Jesus state or the Bible state that Revelation is not to be used for current doctrine. Maybe for your ecclesial community it won't do but not for mine.

 

[Charlie7399]

1. The saints in Heaven are not dead, but alive in Christ
2. God, who is omnipotent, can hear the prayers of the saints on Earth
3. Therefore, every saint in Heaven can hear the prayers of every saint on Earth

You see the logical problem here? You can't deduct point 3 from points 1 and 2. Also, all I'm saying is that Revelation is highly symbolic. That doesn't mean we shouldn't consider it valid for doctrine, but it does mean that we should be extra careful when reading it. It's too easy to read something into the text, as you've just demonstrated. Let's not forget the people who use it to say that the Catholic Church is the harlot of Babylon.

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

What makes you think they are spiritually dead? We are more than just a physical body. We house a spiritual self commonly referred to as the soul. The Saints who have passed on are very much alive in Christ. Moses and Elijah who were long dead appear with Christ to the disciples on the Mount of Transfiguration (Matt. 17:3).

Who said they were spiritually dead? All I said was they were dead: that is, dead in the sense we normally have of the word, which means physically dead.

There is no disconnect between Heaven and Earth for christians. We are in constant communication via prayer, songs of praise and worship i.e. the Mass.

Those things connect us to God, not to anyone else in Heaven.

Our Lord, Our Lady and Guardian Angels visit us. Not even death can part us from the Body of Christ . Moses and Elijah were deemed worthy to be assumed into Heaven, we believe the Apostles and Our Lady are also deemed worthy.

Would you like to biblically prove your case, or do you just love to post things you believe in but cannot prove?

Matthew 22: 31-32: And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God, `I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not God of the dead, but of the living."

So what?

I quoted Matthew as well. Two separate verses. Why won't Revelation do? Nowhere does Jesus state or the Bible state that Revelation is not to be used for current doctrine. Maybe for your ecclesial community it won't do but not for mine.

Because the verses you quoted from Matthew do not say you should pray to dead people — and neither does the verse from Revelation, if you look closely to it.

 

[Albion]

This is simply a statement of your personal beliefs. There isn't any Biblical support for the concepts under discussion. Yes, the souls of those who have died live on, but neither are we advised to pray to them, nor is there any indication that they can hear those prayers.

Those Saints deemed worthy and who have passed are physically dead but spiritually Alive in Christ. Moses and Elijah who were long dead appear with Christ to the disciples on the Mount of Transfiguration (Matt. 17:3)....

What God has forbidden is necromantic practice of conjuring up spirits (e.g. seances).

Not only do those in heaven pray with us, they also pray for us. Also, those in heaven who offer to God our prayers aren’t just angels, but humans as well. John sees that "the twenty-four elders [the leaders of the people of God in heaven] fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints" (Rev. 5:8). The simple fact is, as this passage shows: The saints in heaven offer to God the prayers of the saints on earth.

 

[prodromos]

This is simply a statement of your personal beliefs. There isn't any Biblical support for the concepts under discussion. Yes, the souls of those who have died live on, but neither are we advised to pray to them, nor is there any indication that they can hear those prayers.

There is ample evidence they can hear our prayers in the life of the Orthodox Church. Christ has one body, and all christians dead or alive are members of that one body. There really is nothing separating us.
I mentioned Saint Nectarios earlier, and one of the things I noticed while visiting Mt Athos here in Greece was the large numbers of pilgrims coming from Romania. This is due to a recent miracle of St Nectarios in 2009. A village in Romania had been without a priest for many years. Despite their requests to the Bishop, he had no priests available to send to them. One day, however, a priest showed up, despite them having been told no priest would be sent. This priest performed funeral services for all those who had died in the absence of a priest, married those who had been living as husband and wife despite not being able to marry, baptised all those who had been born since they last had a priest, heard their confessions and served the Divine Liturgy so that they could all receive Holy Communion. After this he told them that he was leaving. They were very upset that he would not be staying but when they understood they could not convince him otherwise, they gave thanks to God for the short time he was able to serve their community. They wrote a letter to the bishop thanking him for sending the priest but also requesting that another could come and stay permanently. The bishop was very surprised as he had not in fact sent a priest and was also concerned as an unknown priest had served in his jurisdiction without his authority, so he asked who the priest was. They answered that they did not know his name, as although he wrote all their certificates (baptismal and marriage) in Romanian, he signed his name in another script which they could not read. When one of them was brought to the bishop, he recognised that it was in Greek and read "Nectarios, Bishop of Pentapolis". When he went to the island of Aegina in Greece where St Nectarios' relics remain, at the monastery he established, he confirmed that it was indeed his signature.
This happened in 2009. St Nectarios died in 1920.

 

[Albion]

There is ample evidence they can hear our prayers in the life of the Orthodox Church.

I'm sorry to tell you, again, that there isn't. It's all a presumption.

Christ has one body, and all christians dead or alive are members of that one body. There really is nothing separating us.

...which still doesn't mean -- or say -- anything about saints allegedly hearing our petitions and acting upon them.

BTW, this doesn't mean that the saints do not pray for us mortals. I do have to correct people when they attempt to morph this fact into the other claims about us praying to them, of them hearing our individual prayers, them acting as intermediaries on behalf of individual humans, or claiming that any of this is supported by Scripture.