Part 1: https://www.solasacramentum.com/post/the-lutherans-ain-t-the-only-ones-with-daddy-issues-part-1
Part 3: https://www.solasacramentum.com/post/the-lutherans-ain-t-the-only-ones-with-daddy-issues-part-3
Last time on Dragon Ball Z we discussed the biblical arguments against the prayer to the saints, but in this post, I will analyze some of the arguments in favor of the practice and, Lord willing, refute them through reason informed by scripture.
The first brand of refutation is simply trying to prove that the practice exists, and to be honest, there aren't many passages that can be bent this way. Really, the only place in the typical canon (not the deuterocanon or other books) is the book of Revelation, specifically 5:8 and 8:2-3, where John writes, 'And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints' and 'Then I saw the seven angels who stand before God, and seven trumpets were given to them. And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer, and he was given much incense to offer with the prayers of all the saints on the golden altar before the throne, and the smoke of the incense, with the prayers of the saints, rose before God from the hand of the angel.' These passages describe elders and angels bringing "the prayer of the saints" before Christ, which many will claim is proof of prayers addressed to saints. However, there is one major problem with these two passages: they don't say the prayers are addressed to the saints or angels. There is no textual evidence that either sets of prayers are addressed to anyone but the Lord, and thus, the best you can give the argument is that the saints and angels act as messengers to give the prayers to God. But even then, the image of the twenty-four elders is not one of a literal group of twenty-four saints that work to bring prayers to the Lord. I, with Victorinus, who boasts of the only patristic commentary on the book that I know of, interpret the twenty-four elders as a symbol for the Old and New Testament church, that is, the whole Church throughout time. From this, we can see that it's obvious that the Church would offer the prayers of the saints to the Lord, because it's their prayers! In this, we see that the passage is actually an affirmation of the fact that our prayers ought to be addressed to the Lord Himself, not by a mediatorial saint or angel. Another texts that isn't in Revelation but is sometimes cited is the Transfiguration, in which Christ communicates with Moses and Elijah even though they are dead. This is obviously not the same thing as prayer to the saints, as the saints were right in front of him, Jesus is God and thus has different faculties than we do, and what's more, if you notice, the apostles never actually address the saints nor are spoken to by them. Rather, only Christ communes with them, because they are already one with Him by their death and will one day be resurrected.
Two passages in the same genre of defence are Luke 16:22-24 and Matthew 27:47-49. In the former, the rich man, after dying, asks Abraham to send Lazarus to him to cool his tongue, which is said to show that one can pray to one dead. The latter is from the crucifixion, when Jesus said "Eli, eli, lema sabachthani" and the soldiers near him thought he was calling to Elijah. The issue with both of these passages is that they are attempting to prove good practices from wicked or pagan men. Why should we learn good practices from an rich man in hell or a Roman soldier crucifying our Lord who knows little of Jewish practice?
The next and more personally frustrating texts are those which try to prove that the saints pray for us or that the prayer of a holy person is a good thing. I understand why many go to these arguments, as some Protestants do argue that the saints don't pray for us or that the prayer of a holy person is unnecessary, but this is completely besides the point. I agree that we should ask our neighbors to pray for us and that the saints do, but that has no bearing on the practice of asking someone dead in the body for intercession.
The third brand of arguments are those which try to defend the idea that the saints can observe what is happening on earth. The first two are 2 Cor 12:2,4 and Acts 7:55, in which a prophet, Paul and Stephen respectively, saw into heaven, and thus the same is true of the saints, who can see onto earth. The issue with this is that these are miraculous experiences and are said to be so, and thus we have no reason to believe that this is a normal experience for hte saints in heaven, just as it is an abnormal experience for those on earth. Another is a combination of Luke 20:36 in which man is "like the angels" and that there is "joy in heaven over one sinner who repents." Thus, as the argument goes, the saints must know when sinners repent. The difficulty with this argument is that the first passage, on which much of the argument rests, is completely ripped from its immediate context. In Luke 20, man is specifically "like the angels" in his immortality and celibacy, not regarding his powers of perception. What's more, this passage isn't about those in the heavenly throne room, but those in the resurrection.
The next two passages to address is 1 Corinthians 13:12, in which Paul writes, “For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known,” and Hebrews 12:1, in which Paul (fight me) also writes, “Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses [literally “martyrs”], let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us.” These two passages are devoid of their context. When Paul is talking about knowledge in 1 Corinthians 13, we see in the previous verse that he is referring to prophetic knowledge, not knowledge of world events, and the reference of a time when we will know "fully" is a reference to the eschaton, not the divine throne room. And as for Hebrews, he is continuing his thoughts from the previous passages. The language of the witnesses "surrounding" us is a legal image in which they are all testifying to the saving power of faith (see Hebrews 11), not that they are physically or locally surrounding us.
Now that the biblical argumentation is done, I want to address issues with the deuterocanon and other intertestamental sources. The only prooftext from the deuterocanon I've seen is Tobit 12:12,15: '[Raphael:]”So now when you and Sarah prayed, it was I who brought and read the record of your prayer before the glory of the Lord, and likewise whenever you would bury the dead…I am Raphael, one of the seven angels who stand ready and enter before the glory of the Lord.”' The biggest issue with using this text, even bigger than its ambiguous status, is seen when one actually looks at the prayer they prayed: 'When the parents had gone out and shut the door of the room, Tobias got out of bed and said to Sarah, “Sister, get up, and let us pray and implore our Lord that he grant us mercy and safety”...So she got up, and they began to pray and implore that they might be kept safe…Tobias began by saying, “Blessed are you, O God of our ancestors, and blessed is your name in all generations forever. Let the heavens and the whole creation bless you forever. ' (8:4-5) They didn't address anyone but the Lord! It is irrelevant whether Raphael brought the prayers or not, because they were not addressed to him.
One argument I've heard is that there are no recorded prayers to any saints because there were so few martyrs to pray to. However, this argument opens up a historical can of worms for the doctrine. For one thing, there were Old Testament saints to pray to, so to say that they had no one is simply incorrect. But that begs the question, why didn't any Old Testament saints pray to the dead? In fact, Saul went so far as to commune with the spirit of a dead Samuel rather than simply pray for his intercession, if the practice existed and was valid. Some have said that they couldn't receive prayers because the harrowing of hell hadn't happened yet and thus they couldn't receive any prayers. The problem with this view is that some WERE, or at least depicted, prayer to a dead saint, as is seen in the book of Enoch when Noah calls on the prophet. If the practice was invalid, why did it exist? And if it was valid, why didn't anyone do it until the second temple period? In my view, there really is no way to answer this issue except to invalidate the doctrine as a whole.
For the next and final installment, we will look at the patristic sources on the topic to show how and when the doctrine first developed.
Comments