Hi SMA12!
Concerning worship, if we read the NT in context, we find that the Jews were extremely careful to not
perform acts that are
equated with worship. In fact, if we look at the reaction to the apostles to people "bowing down" to them or even angels, we find that they are horrified.
When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. But Peter lifted him up, saying, Stand up; I too am a man.
Then I fell down at his feet to worship him, but he said to me, You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God. For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
(Acts 10:25-26; Revelation 19:10 ESV)
As you know, veneration of saints (and by saint, I'm meaning the RCC and EO understanding of a departed holy person who can allegedly take requests and perform miracles) can involve bowing and praying (sometimes chanting) a scripted invocation to a departed saint, and sometimes touching and/or kissing artifacts that belonged to the saint (including their dead body parts). So I can see why people would equate asking departed saints to pray for people here with worship based on these facts. In fact if we take the 7th Ecumenical Council at it's word, you're anathema if you don't venerate icons.
Now, regarding the idea of asking someone to pray for you, we are commanded
to pray for each other and there's nothing wrong with asking with asking for living people who can hear or read your petition to pray for you.
The problem with asking departed saints (as understood by the RCC and EO) is then twofold:
- There is a communication problem.
- There is no way to know who a saint is without a claim to supernatural revelation.
#1 is pretty straight forward. Even if the apostle John is in paradise right now, what makes us think that he's aware of when we call on him? For that matter, even if he could hear us, what makes us think he could do anything for us? When we look at Apostolic Tradition as recorded in Scripture for any evidence of this, we're met with silence.
Since protestants (not to mention Reformed ones) only believe that Apostolic Tradition as recorded in Scripture (and the rest of Scripture) to have the authority to bind our conscience on spiritual matters (based on the fact that Scripture itself represents special or supernatural revelation...i.e. it is God's revealed and recognized will), and since Apostolic Tradition is silent on the matter, we must reject it. It does not matter if numerous church fathers approved of the practice because church fathers do not have the same authority as Apostolic Tradition as recorded in Scripture because to claim they do, is to claim that they are prophets who have the gift of special revelation. So yes, we can acknowledge that in later tradition we find this practice, but since it lacks Apostolic Tradition, it must be rejected as that which does not represent the revealed will of God to His church, but rather a tradition of fallible men.
Concerning #2, this is the curious contradiction we find in churches like the RCC and EO. Both of these churches reject Sola Gratia -> Sola Fide. They do so on the basis that justification (in fact, all aspects of salvation) involve a combination of faith and works. They also believe that anyone can fall from grace at any time. Thus, there is no way to know if anyone is saved until after that person is dead. But of course, how do you know this person "was saved" (aka on their way to purgatory and then heaven)? They only way we can know this is with a claim to supernatural revelation. The Magisterium (in the case of the RCC) implicitly implies that they have such knowledge (as does the Pope when speaking ex cathedra). But of course, once one claims to have supernatural revelation, they are claiming to be a prophet. Prophets are tested. We is not the Pope or Magisterium tested?
So as you can see, we do not believe the practice has Apostolic, and thus, divine sanction (since we do not find it in Apostolic Tradition as recorded in Scripture), and thus, must be rejected as an innovation. We also find the practice to demonstrate what looks like the church talking out of both sides of it's mouth when it claims that no one can be secure in their salvation while calming that such and such a person is not only saved, but can take requests (they apparently have a form of invocation telepathy) and perform parlor miracles on request. In fact, in many cases they also become to the go to dude (or dudette)
for a particular problem. We not only find this to lack any divine sanction, but we also find it to bear a striking resemblance to hermetic magic, where one
invokes a certain "spirit" for a certain reason.
So as you can see, it's not as simple as "don't you ask your mom to pray for you." We're talking about being able to communicate with the dead through supernatural means. We can claim all day long "we're not praying to them, but rather asking them to pray for us!" But the fact remains, you're claiming that you can communicate supernaturally with the dead. What do we call people who claim to be able to commune with the dead?
How did you come to the conclusion that Christ allows this? Do we find this from divine revelation as recorded in Apostolic Tradition as recorded in Scripture?
Again, do you see again why we reject this claim as not having sufficient authority to bind the conscience of the believer?
I don't expect this to convince you, because you no doubt carry with you other
presuppositions that Peter's ship has the supernatural authority that is equal to Apostolic Tradition. But I do hope that you at least come away understanding our POV. We do not believe that anyone has the authority to make later conscience binding claims. As our confession says regarding God's revealed will as recorded in Scripture:
The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture. -
WCF I
This is the essence of "Sola Scriptura." We're happy to consult other sources for information and some sources, like reason and tradition, are indeed authoritative if handled wisely. But they still do not have the same authority (either individually or collectively) as the revealed and recorded will of God.
Finally, please remember that this isn't a debate forum. I'm trying to share with you why we reject this practice so you can hopefully better understand us.
Hope this help and God bless!
