From time to time, one hears folks claim that they hold to their views because they found them in the Bible. For example, one hears claims from Roman Catholic apologists that they figured out that Roman Catholic theology was scriptural, and consequently became Roman Catholics.
One area where such a claim cannot be true (and there are doubtless many such areas) is in the area of prayers/communications/call them what you like, to departed Christians. The source of such doctrines is not the Holy Spirit speaking through Scripture.
Here are some questions to demonstrate:
1. If you are trying to communicate with a dead person who did not know your language during life, what makes you think that the person will understand your language now?
Answer: Not the Bible. The Bible provides no reason to suppose that dead people gain knowledge of new human languages.
2. If you are trying to communicate with a dead person whose body is far away from you, what makes you think that the person will hear you?
Answer: Not the Bible. The Bible provides no reason to suppose that dead people can hear people who are talking far away from their corpses.
3. If you are trying to communicate with a dead person who is very popular - such as Jude or Seraphim of Saratov, what makes you think that the person has the ability or availability to hear you?
Answer: Not the Bible. The Bible provides no reason to suppose that dead people can hear many communications that are made at the same time, or that can be available to hear communications in general.
4. If you are trying to communicate with someone who you believe is bodily in heaven, other than Christ, what makes you think that such communication is possible?
Answer: Not the Bible. The Bible provides no reason to suppose that anyone in heaven beside Christ can hear our communications.
Let's see how one Roman Catholic apologist (a lay apologist named Dave Armstrong) responded on similar issues:
Similar to (1) & (4):
Dave writes: "If it is objected that the dead saints cannot hear us, we reply that God is fully able to give them that power ...."(source) The problem with this response is that it is special pleading. There is no question that God can give the gift of tongues and interpretation of tongues, and even that he has done so. Likewise, there is no question that God can enable communication between the living and the dead. The question is whether there is a reason to suppose that God does give dead saints (or those who are bodily in heaven) such an ability. It should be clear that the answer to that question remains "not the Bible."
Similar to (2):
DA writes cites the "Cloud of Witnesses" of Hebrews 12:1 (source). The problem with DA's citation is that "witnesses" in that verse does not mean spectators, but testifiers. In other words, DA's citation is based on misconstruing an ambiguity that is present in English but not present in Greek or Latin. In English, a witness can be an observer or the one who is observed. In fact, the first sense has slightly predominated our usage. Nevertheless, the cloud of witnesses of Hebrews 12:1 are a cloud of the latter kind of witness - the kind we see (not in graven images, but in the pages of Scripture) and who testify to us (not by voices in our heads, but from the pages of Scripture). Of course, while the principle witnesses were taken from Scripture, we could add additional ones not listed in Scripture, to the same effect. We are surrounded by their testimony and it should encourage us. They stand as a memorial, not as judges.
DA, however, cites a contrary opinion: DA cites Marvin Vincent (calling his work "a famous, standard Protestant reference work") who acknowledges that witnesses do not mean observers, but who asserts that the idea that they are spectators is implied. This is the classic "argument from authority" fallacy. DA cites a broad reference work that is supposedly "standard" and uses that in place of a reasoned exegesis of the text. There's a reason why such an approach is taken: whether it is Vincent or DA making the claim, the claim cannot stand on the text of Scripture, because it fundamentally relies on the English ambiguity. DA (by Vincent) asserts that the idea of spectators is "the principal idea," but that assertion is not correct. The idea of encouragement is the main idea - and that encouragement is gained by the footprints of those who have run before, not by their observation from the stands, as DA/Vincent portrays the matter.
Similar to (3): How can Mary, as a human being, hear millions of daily prayers simultaneously, much less process millions of daily prayers?
DA's Response: "Very simple: the saints, being with God in heaven, are outside of time. That being the case, they simply have no problem of number and sequence as we do, since we are temporal creatures, and hence, severely limited in that sense." (source)
There are several important problems with the response, but the point to be made here is that the only aspect of the response that is derived from Scripture is that the saints are with God in heaven. The other aspect, that they are outside of time, is contrary to Scripture. Recall that the martyrs in heaven will ask the question: "How long ... before... ?" (Revelation 6:9-10) Such a question presumes both time and the martyrs' subjection to it.
It should be clear from the examples above that those who try to communicate with the departed do so without Biblical warrant. The practice of attempting to communicate with the departed is both futile and sinful, even though it is doubtless done with excellent intentions by many Christians who so practice.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It should be noted that a rebuttal to DA's multi-part argument for prayer to the saints has already been rebutted here (link).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
May God be glorified by those whom He has made holy!
-Turretinfan
Friday, September 28, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
39 comments:
So, you really don't believe that with God all things are possible?
Huh.
Timothy:
If you read and understood my post, you would not write that.
Where did you get confused?
-Turretinfan
It's funny how DA likes to cite the one or two Protestant scholars that agree with him, but probably wouldn't like it when one shows him all the modern Roman Catholic sholars who agree with the Protestant interpretation of traditional Catholic proof-texts:
Malachi 1:11, Luke 24:13-35, 1 Cor. 3:15, Col. 1:24, 1 Tim. 3:15, James 2, 1 Peter 3:19-20., etc., etc., etc.
I am about to start going through his book, "The Catholic Verses," and doing an exegesis of each verse that he cites in support of Roman teaching.
www.contra-gentes.blogspot.com
S&S,
I look forward to your exegesis!
-Turretinfan
It's a bit silly to discuss science in a theological setting, but we know from science that time in one context does not run at the same rate as in other contexts. If a million people leave on a spaceship travelling near the speed of light and send messages back home, they will appear to arrive much slower than they actually occurred. If time is running slower up there, then the saints have all the time in the world to answer an incoming prayer.
Since the bible doesn't say if time runs at the same time up there as down here, then to assume either one or the other would be extra biblical. If the bible doesn't say anything about communicating with saints then it adds nothing to the discussion to ask about whether the bible says anything about handling multiple incoming messages at the same time. If the bible does teach prayer to saints, would you doubt it because the bible says nothing about how multiple messages? Of course not. This argument is mere distraction.
I might add that where does the bible say that Satan can do multiple things at once? With all the activity that protestant churches assign to Satan, he seems to be a lot more clever at multi-tasking than any saint in heaven has been accused of being. If protestants are to be consistent in this whole prayer to saint thing, then they ought to relegate satan to being nothing more than a bit player who pokes his head into the world on the odd occasion, but biblically incapable of even a meager fraction of what protestant churches accuse him of.
Of course this is where protestants have a TRADITION, that they inherited from us and can't shake off, not that I think have they ever thought to shake it off.
Now Revelation 5:3 says that saints are offering prayers up to God. Revelation 8:3 says that all the saints are offering prayer to God, which presumably includes those in heaven. So we've got saints in heaven acting as some kind of mail house for heavenly communications, and apparently saints in heaven offering prayers to God.
Now, none of this is good enough for the sola scripturalist. But who said it has to be?
Of course, the idea that heavenly beings can intervene for human affairs is not new to the church.
When thou didst pray with tears… I [Archangel Raphael] offered thy prayer to the Lord. (Tobit xii, 12)
So will protestants at least grant us we can petition angels to intevene with the Lord, because "it is written"? Well protestants don't accept this book as scripture, which is another problem for another discussion.
The final irony here Francis is you have quoted to us Revelation 6:9 as support for yourself. But what does this verse tell us? It tell us that (a) the saints in heaven are aware of what's going on, on earth. (b) They are concerned about the welfare of those on earth (c) they are petitioning God concerning the welfare of those on earth.
Well that's all the points of the puzzle you've provided for us. The saints know what I'm doing and the saints can petition God to solve my problems. Thanks for quoting proof text.
Orthodox,
Thanks for your comments. I should point out that your comments, which have not been published, on another thread have not been rejected - I'm just still reviewing them.
You wrote:"It's a bit silly to discuss science in a theological setting, but we know from science that time in one context does not run at the same rate as in other contexts. If a million people leave on a spaceship travelling near the speed of light and send messages back home, they will appear to arrive much slower than they actually occurred. If time is running slower up there, then the saints have all the time in the world to answer an incoming prayer."
I respond: It's not just a bit silly, it's special pleading. There is no reason from the Bible to suppose that the departed experience the passage of time at a different speed.
Your comment raises an additional issue though: I was only addressing the difficulties associated with the departed hearing/understanding what we say. There's an additional problem that arises if the departed are trying to take action based on what we say: especially if that action takes place in this sphere (i.e. not merely in heaven) (take, for example, this prayer attributed to JP2 in which Mary, Jesus' mother, is asked to: "pour trust into the hearts of young people...", something that would involve Mary acting in this world from the next (not to mention attributing something to Mary that is the work of God) (Source).
You wrote: "Since the bible doesn't say if time runs at the same time up there as down here, then to assume either one or the other would be extra biblical. If the bible doesn't say anything about communicating with saints then it adds nothing to the discussion to ask about whether the bible says anything about handling multiple incoming messages at the same time. If the bible does teach prayer to saints, would you doubt it because the bible says nothing about how multiple messages? Of course not. This argument is mere distraction."
I respond: It's necessary for the rebuttal to assume either one: it's enough to show that the attempted explanation is simply a creative fabrication by the advocate of communications with the departed. In other words, there is no reason to suppose that time runs differently in heaven based on Scripture.
You wrote: "I might add that where does the bible say that Satan can do multiple things at once? With all the activity that protestant churches assign to Satan, he seems to be a lot more clever at multi-tasking than any saint in heaven has been accused of being. If protestants are to be consistent in this whole prayer to saint thing, then they ought to relegate satan to being nothing more than a bit player who pokes his head into the world on the odd occasion, but biblically incapable of even a meager fraction of what protestant churches accuse him of."
I respond: Red herring, i.e. irrelevant to the discussion. Tweaking the nose of "Protestants" may be fun, but the particular criticism you raise is not germane to this discussion.
You wrote: "Of course this is where protestants have a TRADITION, that they inherited from us and can't shake off, not that I think have they ever thought to shake it off."
I respond: This seems to be a continuation of the foregoing. Irrelevant to the discussion - and fanciful, in that if Protestants got such an idea from tradition, it was much more likely from Catholic than from Orthodox tradition.
You wrote: "Of course, the idea that heavenly beings can intervene for human affairs is not new to the church."
I respond: Straw man. Your own red herring shows that you are aware that (at least some) Protestants are not opposed to the idea of heavenly beings intervening in human affairs.
You wrote: "When thou didst pray with tears… I [Archangel Raphael] offered thy prayer to the Lord. (Tobit xii, 12)."
I respond:
My translation is a bit different:
Tob 12:12 Now therefore, when thou didst pray, and Sara thy daughter in law, I did bring the remembrance of your prayers before the Holy One: and when thou didst bury the dead, I was with thee likewise.
(And A. A. Di Lella's recent English translation confirms that the KJV's translation is a more accurate translation from the Greek than your - apparently Roman Catholic - translation. Interestingly, Tobit 12:12 is not a verse for which there is enormous variation in the manuscript evidence, unlike many of the other verses in the book.)
Regardless, however, since Raphael is supposed to be an angel, not a departed human, whether Raphael could deliver prayers (or - as Tobit actually says - bring their remembrance) is irrelevant to the discussion from at least that perspective. It is also irrelevant since Raphael's work is being announced in a way that suggests that the father-in-law of Sara would have been unaware of Raphael's work: i.e. that the father-in-law had not asked Raphael to deliver his prayers or bring them before the Lord's remembrance.
You wrote: "So will protestants at least grant us we can petition angels to intevene with the Lord, because "it is written"? Well protestants don't accept this book as scripture, which is another problem for another discussion."
I respond: There is no Biblical example of people asking angels to intervene, and Tobit (if it were part of Scripture) would not be a counter-example. At least, this author is not aware of any such example. If, however, there is such an example, it would be when an angel appeared to the person: in which case the Biblical / common sense objections would be moot: as an angel standing in front of one is the proper object of communication.
You wrote: "The final irony here Francis is you have quoted to us Revelation 6:9 as support for yourself. But what does this verse tell us? It tell us that (a) the saints in heaven are aware of what's going on, on earth. (b) They are concerned about the welfare of those on earth (c) they are petitioning God concerning the welfare of those on earth."
I respond: Not true. The verse shows that those in heaven are aware that judgment day has not occurred and that they long for that day. Let's look at the verse itself, though, in case you have any doubts:
Rev 6:10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?
A) it should be clear that they are calling for judgment and revenge.
B) it should be clear that they are aware that this judgment has not yet been executed.
C) In context, however, these are martyrs that have just arrived (note that they are given white robes immediately afterward), and consequently their knowledge about earthly affairs is most obviously attributable to their memory.
D) Likewise, look at the answer that is given them:
Rev 6:11 And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.
In other words, they have to rest for a time, until all the martyrs that God has foreordained to that glorious service should be brought to heaven.
Then God will bring judgment and revenge upon them who persecuted the church.
So, actually no ... the verse does not say what you claimed at all.
You wrote: "Well that's all the points of the puzzle you've provided for us. The saints know what I'm doing and the saints can petition God to solve my problems. Thanks for quoting proof text."
I respond: It is interesting to note that Revelation 6:10 is used as a "proof-text" by many lay Roman Catholic apologists, without any consideration of what the text says or means. The fact that it is so used is susceptible to three explanations:
1) lack of reading comprehension; 2) gross delusion; or
3) deliberate deceptiveness.
I would prefer to assume the first. Of course, perhaps you will claim that it is I who lacks reading comprehension. If so, please feel free to demonstrate such.
-Turretinfan
"So will protestants at least grant us we can petition angels to intevene with the Lord, because "it is written"?
In Scripture, when this occurs, as a general rule the angel appears to a person as a messenger with a message from God. Angels are not man's messengers to God.
In point of fact, Hebrews itself is rather clear on the problems involved with angeloatry, which is implicitly in view in the opening chapter.
In addition, prayer to angels would require you to know some names. Where can we find the list of names of angels who are proper recipients of prayer?
Finally, something Brother TF does not discuss, but which is highly germane to this issue in Romanism is the treasury of merit. So, I would add to his argument here that prayers to saints are predicated, in Roman Catholic theology, on the treasury of merit. Where is the supporting exegetical argument for it?
Gene: Good points.
I should point out that there is a slightly stronger choice of "proof-text" as regards Raphael in Tobit.
Tobit 12:15 I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels, which present the prayers of the saints, and which go in and out before the glory of the Holy One.
This presents a kind of heavenly mail room, with Raphael and six others bringing the prayers addressed to God before Him.
As you point out, an alternative interpretation (that the angels were mediators to whom people were to pray) would seem to require names (other than just Raphael).
Perhaps precisely to accompany such angelotry, the pseudographical and apocryphal book of Enoch lists:
Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, Uriel, Raguel, Zerachiel, and Remiel
Pseudo-Dionysius identifies:
Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, Uriel, Chamuel, Jophiel, and Zadkiel.
Pope Gregory I gives:
Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, Uriel, Simiel, Orifiel, and Zachariel.
Eastern Orthodoxy has:
Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, Uriel, Selaphiel, Jegudiel, and Barachiel.
Another Catholic variation provides a variation per day of week: Michael (Sunday), Gabriel (Monday), Raphael (Tuesday), Uriel (Wednesday), Sealtiel (Thursday), Jhudiel (Friday) and Barachiel (Saturday).
(source)
-Turretinfan
T: Thanks for your comments. I should point out that your comments, which have not been published, on another thread have not been rejected - I'm just still reviewing them.
O: It's been a while. I'm liable to forget about that thread.
T: I respond: It's not just a bit silly, it's special pleading. There is no reason from the Bible to suppose that the departed experience the passage of time at a different speed.
O: There is no reason to suppose it is either the same OR different. That's the point. If you think we should assume it is the same, I call that special pleading.
T: There's an additional problem that arises if the departed are trying to take action based on what we say
O: I think the majority opinion would be that this is short-hand talk for asking the saint to petition God to do whatever we are talking about. But that's an open area of discussion.
T: In other words, there is no reason to suppose that time runs differently in heaven based on Scripture.
O: Again, you are the one assuming one or the other to make an argument. I'm not assuming either one, I'm just pointing out possibilities. Since we don't know either way, to assume one or the other is nonsense.
But if I wanted to make an argument... "
"But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day."
Now the saints are "with the Lord", ergo....
T: if Protestants got such an idea from tradition, it was much more likely from Catholic than from Orthodox tradition.
O: It is a combined tradition of the one catholic/orthodox church.
T: Your own red herring shows that you are aware that (at least some) Protestants are not opposed to the idea of heavenly beings intervening in human affairs.
O: Ok, so why the debate?
T: My translation is a bit different
O: I don't see the relevance to you of the re-translation.
T: the father-in-law had not asked Raphael to deliver his prayers or bring them before the Lord's remembrance.
O: If so, how can that be anything but a pity if he didn't know that he could enlist Raphael's help? The important point is that it is possible.
T: If, however, there is such an example, it would be when an angel appeared to the person: in which case the Biblical / common sense objections would be moot: as an angel standing in front of one is the proper object of communication.
O: Common sense? Why is your theory common sense, however it is not common sense that since angels (a) know of our prayers and (b) know of our problems and (c) can petition God about them, and (d) are inclined to be helping us, that we shouldn't ask the angels to help us? You don't have a monopoly on common sense.
T: In context, however, these are martyrs that have just arrived (note that they are given white robes immediately afterward), and consequently their knowledge about earthly affairs is most obviously attributable to their memory.
O: On the other hand, they were found "under the alter" when he removed the seal. Not a sign they had just checked in.
T: In other words, they have to rest for a time, until all the martyrs that God has foreordained to that glorious service should be brought to heaven.
O: Not sure of your point. Exactly which parts of the puzzle do you think you have argued against?
At the end of the day, you're not going to be convinced if you are inclined not to be, and if you don't believe in the tradition of the church. But then again, how do you even know Revelation is scripture at all apart from the tradition of the church?
"Where can we find the list of names of angels who are proper recipients of prayer?"
In Tradition there are lists of names.
Orthodox wrote: "In Tradition there are lists of names."
I respond: And where did "Tradition" get the list(s) (conflicting, as you'll note upon reviewing them) from?
-Turretinfan
I had written: "It's not just a bit silly, it's special pleading. There is no reason from the Bible to suppose that the departed experience the passage of time at a different speed."
Orthodox responded: "There is no reason to suppose it is either the same OR different. That's the point. If you think we should assume it is the same, I call that special pleading."
I respond: There is a general principle of uniformity in Creation. It is deviations from the ordinary that need to be explained/justified, because of that principle.
*************
I had written: "There's an additional problem that arises if the departed are trying to take action based on what we say"
Orthodox responded: "I think the majority opinion would be that this is short-hand talk for asking the saint to petition God to do whatever we are talking about. But that's an open area of discussion."
I respond: What - after 2000 years the Orthodox do not know how to pray to saints? Tradition has not definitively explained yet? Nevertheless, certainly asking them to pray for us is less offensive to Protestant "converts" to Orthodoxy/Catholicism, and tends to dominate modern Orthodox/Catholic published prayers. Still, as noted in my previous post, the prayers (including those of the pope) are not limited to such requests.
****************
I had written: "In other words, there is no reason to suppose that time runs differently in heaven based on Scripture."
Orthodox responded: "Again, you are the one assuming one or the other to make an argument. I'm not assuming either one, I'm just pointing out possibilities. Since we don't know either way, to assume one or the other is nonsense."
I respond: There's no reason to suppose that it is even a possibility. It's like you claiming that the prayers are brought up to heaven by fairies, then collated by hobbits, engraved in marble tablets by trolls, and carried before God by ogres. To say that "this is just pointing out possibilities" and not special pleading is simply a failure to understand what special pleading is.
************
Orthodox continued: "But if I wanted to make an argument... "
"But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day."
Now the saints are "with the Lord", ergo...."
I respond: "With the Lord" is not a geographic designation. The statement is normally understood as an expression of time's irrelevance to God (he does not age, and he can act instantly). On top of that, the way that the argument is introduced makes it clear that the argument is a pretext, and consequently does not require further detailed rebuttal.
***************
I had written: "if Protestants got such an idea from tradition, it was much more likely from Catholic than from Orthodox tradition."
Orthodox replied: "It is a combined tradition of the one catholic/orthodox church."
I wrote: The one catholic/orthodox church - ha. Is the earthly head of that the church the pope? The ecclesiology of Orthodoxy and Catholicism prevent their union as "one church." In any event, the formally are not one church, and have not been for quite a long time.
************
I had written: "Your own red herring shows that you are aware that (at least some) Protestants are not opposed to the idea of heavenly beings intervening in human affairs."
Orthodox wrote: "Ok, so why the debate?"
I respond: Because departed Christians are humans, not angels/demons. You read the original post, right?
************
I had written: "My translation is a bit different"
Orthodox responded: "I don't see the relevance to you of the re-translation."
I respond: Reminding God of the prayers of someone is different than offering prayers on behalf of that person. See the difference?
************
I had written: "the father-in-law had not asked Raphael to deliver his prayers or bring them before the Lord's remembrance."
Orthodox replied: "If so, how can that be anything but a pity if he didn't know that he could enlist Raphael's help? The important point is that it is possible."
I respond: The passage does not say or suggest that it is possible, which is - as you point out - the important point. The point of the passage was not that it was a pity he didn't know that he could "enlist Raphael's help," but that Raphael spontaneously acted on Tobit's behalf.
*****************
I had written: "If, however, there is such an example, it would be when an angel appeared to the person: in which case the Biblical / common sense objections would be moot: as an angel standing in front of one is the proper object of communication."
Orthodox responded: "Common sense? Why is your theory common sense, however it is not common sense that since angels (a) know of our prayers and (b) know of our problems and (c) can petition God about them, and (d) are inclined to be helping us, that we shouldn't ask the angels to help us? You don't have a monopoly on common sense."
I respond: A monopoly on common sense? Cute. The common sense objection is that common sense tells us we cannot communicate with people who are not within earshot. Are you unaware of that objection?
****************
I had written: "In context, however, these are martyrs that have just arrived (note that they are given white robes immediately afterward), and consequently their knowledge about earthly affairs is most obviously attributable to their memory."
Orthodox responded: "On the other hand, they were found "under the alter" when he removed the seal. Not a sign they had just checked in."
I respond: Interesting observation. Under the altar you mean, of course. Nevertheless, it is an interesting question of interpretation. It's almost as if they had been waiting under the altar for the seal to be opened. In any event, whether they are new arrivals or not is peripheral to the point I was making. I will gladly stop short of being dogmatic about that point.
*************
I had written: "In other words, they have to rest for a time, until all the martyrs that God has foreordained to that glorious service should be brought to heaven."
Orthodox responded: "Not sure of your point. Exactly which parts of the puzzle do you think you have argued against?"
I respond: It's mostly relevant to a position that you have not advocated - namely that heaven is already timeless. In any event, it is not central to the rebuttal of the "Orthodox" position (which presumably is the puzzle).
************
Orthodox continued: "At the end of the day, you're not going to be convinced if you are inclined not to be, and if you don't believe in the tradition of the church."
I respond: I could humorously respond that this would explain the Biblical silence as to anyone in the Old or New Testament times of inscripturation engaging in such practices: namely because they had not received the tradition of your church. That might not, however, been quite what you intended. The bottom line is that it is not a position that is derivable from Scripture or common sense. It is a corruption whose primary influence was probably pagan ancestor worship. There's no reason from Scripture to practice as proposed by "Orthodoxy" and "Catholicism."
*************
Orthodox concluded: "But then again, how do you even know Revelation is scripture at all apart from the tradition of the church?"
I respond: How did Timothy? How did Paul? How did Peter? The answer is the same: the Holy Spirit illumines our minds. We do not receive Scripture on the authority of "the Church," we receive churches on the authority of Scripture. That is a fundamental point that is worth noting. We heard of Scripture because a preacher preached, but we believed the preacher because the Holy Ghost opened our eyes. We trust God, not men. Your question suggests that such trust is foreign to you and to those who taught you what you know.
-Turretinfan
In Tradition there are lists of names.
Since we're talking about the Romanist practice, you'll need to:
a. Justify the treasury of merit.
b. Justify the appeal to non-Scriptural names.
O: There is no reason to suppose it is either the same OR different. That's the point. If you think we should assume it is the same, I call that special pleading.
No, it's special pleading to call upon one and not the other based on "science" as if "science" is what determines the validity of your theory over what is in Scripture. It is not special pleading for TF to do this, since he is arguing from Scripture, and Scripture builds in a particular assumption about the flow of time, namely that those in heaven are not "outside time."
"But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day."
Now the saints are "with the Lord", ergo...
This statement from Scripture regards two things:
1. The return of Christ in view of the coming eschaton. It is figurative speech regarding the imminent return of Christ.
2. It refers to the timelessness of God.
The timelessness of God and the flow of time in regard to those in heaven are not convertible principles. You've made a category error.
O: On the other hand, they were found "under the alter" when he removed the seal. Not a sign they had just checked in.
Another category error. You've made an assumption about time from a spatial metaphor.
This is simply a statement from Jewish thinking about the significance of such a place. (Ex: Rabbi Akiba, taught that a Jew "buried in the land of Israel is as if he were buried beneath the altar; he who is buried beneath the altar is as if he were buried beneath the throne of glory." (see the Talmud, also Aboth de Rabbi Nathan 26 (4c). Time is nowhere in view here; rather sacred space is in view.
At the end of the day, you're not going to be convinced if you are inclined not to be, and if you don't believe in the tradition of the church.
So, it's your contention that prayers to saints were taught from the beginning?
And since the Catholic practice is in view here, can we assume that you believe the treasury of merit was taught from the beginning?
Where are the supporting arguments? Some might say that it is precisely because they affirm the tradition of the church in this matter that they reject prayers to the saints.
Let us not forget also that "prayers to the saints" is not just praying to any person who is in heaven. Rather, we're talking about a list of canonized persons - another part of the argument that is left without a supporting argument from you.
O: Common sense? Why is your theory common sense, however it is not common sense that since angels (a) know of our prayers and (b) know of our problems and (c) can petition God about them, and (d) are inclined to be helping us, that we shouldn't ask the angels to help us? You don't have a monopoly on common sense.
Once again, in Scripture, angels are not man's messengers to God. They are God's messengers to man.
What you have done above is commit a classic example of the is-ought fallacy.
Brother Gene:
It's worth noting that although Orthodox is advocating the same practice as DA he is attempting to do so from an "Orthodox" not a Papist perspective.
Thus, apparently he feels free to stray a bit from the topic, and I have not perhaps properly reined him in.
I'd like to reemphasize several points you made:
"[In] Scripture, angels are not man's messengers to God. They are God's messengers to man."
"So, it's your contention that prayers to saints were taught from the beginning?" (Although I suspect he will eventually be forced to admit that this doctrine was a development, with no ante-Nicean support.)
"Let us not forget also that "prayers to the saints" is not just praying to any person who is in heaven. Rather, we're talking about a list of canonized persons - another part of the argument that is left without a supporting argument from you."
Thanks for your comments!
-Turretinfan
G: Let us not forget also that "prayers to the saints" is not just praying to any person who is in heaven. Rather, we're talking about a list of canonized persons - another part of the argument that is left without a supporting argument from you.
O: No, you can talk to anyone in heaven. The canonized saints are the ones that are canonical: recognized by the church as such.
Orthodox:
How about those in hell? I suppose if you can talk with anyone in heaven, you can talk with those in hell, as well, eh?
-Turretinfan
O: No, you can talk to anyone in heaven. The canonized saints are the ones that are canonical: recognized by the church as such.
Really? Is that your view or the view of the Orthodox Communion?
There are six categories of saints in Orthodoxy, under which does "everybody else that is not a special person" fall? The descriptions of those to whom prayers are offered in your Tradition are not "just anybody" descriptors. Rather, they are "especially holy," or "exceptionally dedicated," , "exceptionally holy Christians, who during their earthly lives helped many of their fellow believers both physically and spiritually" etc. I've see Perry Robinson defend this practice and I don't recall that he has ever stated that the Orthodox tradition supports prayer to just anybody. So, who speaks for Orthodoxy?
So, do you offer prayer to your dearly departed grandmother or do you pray to St. Stephen or another such person? Which is to be preferred?
And notice that you've offered this without a single piece of supporting argument from Scripture. The one passage to which you have appealed, if a prooftext for your position @ all, would be the classification of "martyrs." Not every Christian is a martyr, so you are now making claims without any exegetical support whatsoever.
Also, I can't help but wonder about all the layers of mediation between you and God in your prayer life. It's looking more and more like "prayers to saints" is synonymous with "traverse the Pleroma" in your thinking.
G: I've see Perry Robinson defend this practice and I don't recall that he has ever stated that the Orthodox tradition supports prayer to just anybody. So, who speaks for Orthodoxy?
O: Again, you are talking about what is done as a community. The community only venerates the canonical saints, because they don't know "my dearly departed grandmother" as you put it, or have any special knowledge about whether she is in heaven. What I do as a private person is a different matter.
G: So, do you offer prayer to your dearly departed grandmother or do you pray to St. Stephen or another such person? Which is to be preferred?
O: If my grandmother was departed (or not!), orthodox, and in my view a saintly woman, I can ask her for her intercession. What is to be preferred? Both.
G: And notice that you've offered this without a single piece of supporting argument from Scripture.
O: Did I claim I needed support from scripture? Where is your scripture proving I need support from scripture?
If you want a scripture, I put forward all those saying to pray for one another, and asking others to pray for you. You assume that only includes those in this world, but we don't.
T: How about those in hell? I suppose if you can talk with anyone in heaven, you can talk with those in hell, as well, eh?
O: That is not part of the tradition. What the point would be, I don't know.
Orthodox:
How on earth would you possibly know what is "not part of (the) Tradition", unless it would contradict somethin IN Tradition?
And what IN Tradition does it contradict?
I think you can easily guess what the purpose would be. After all, what if St. Seraphim (or any of the other myriad of Orthodox Saints) was a fraud, and is in hell?
-Turretinfan
Orthodox:
I'll let Gene answer your post about your prayers to your dead ancestors.
I'll just point out that this practice has an ancient tradition - in Japan (and not a single example in Scripture).
-Turretinfan
Orthodox wrote (in a post that was not fully accepted for publication):
"T: "So, it's your contention that prayers to saints were taught from the beginning?" (Although I suspect he will eventually be forced to admit that this doctrine was a development, with no ante-Nicean support.)
O: That would depend on your dating of various sources. [Excursis on epistemology omitted.] Certainly, prayer to saints is something that became bigger over time. It probably started out in the first century liturgy with a rememberance of the martyrs and asking them to remember us to God. Over time, as the number of martyrs expanded, so did the practice by virtue that there were a lot more of them."
I respond:
Come on, Orthodox, we both know that there's no historical evidence of such prayers within Christianity before the 4th century at the very earliest.
-Turretinfan
O: Again, you are talking about what is done as a community. The community only venerates the canonical saints, because they don't know "my dearly departed grandmother" as you put it, or have any special knowledge about whether she is in heaven. What I do as a private person is a different matter.
A community is composed of individuals. So, if you do, indeed do this, I'll take this as an admission that you are acting outside your "community."
And "veneration" and "praying to" saints are intersecting, but not convertible ideas. You've committed a category error.
Notice that our champion of the one True Holy Apostolic Orthodox Church suddenly turns into quite the individualistic man when pressed, yet he castigates Protestants for this sort of thing on an ongoing basis.
O: If my grandmother was departed (or not!), orthodox, and in my view a saintly woman, I can ask her for her intercession. What is to be preferred? Both.
Once again, an assertion, not an argument. As TF points out, Orthodox is now borrowing from Japanese ancestor worship, not Orthodoxy itself.
O: Did I claim I needed support from scripture? Where is your scripture proving I need support from scripture?
Well, since you've invoked the book of Acts to state, in times past, that the Bible actually says that the Eastern Orthodox Church is one true Holy Apostolic Orthodox Church, one would think you would at least make the attempt to justify this on Scriptural grounds. You invoke Scripture yourself all the time, so I'm only answering you on your own grounds.
You're free to admit that you don't have a biblical leg on which to stand if you wish, however.
And I'll also take this as a frank admission on your part that, if what you say is true about Orthodoxy, Orthodoxy feels free to make things up whole cloth as it goes along, utterly apart from Scripture.
If you want a scripture, I put forward all those saying to pray for one another, and asking others to pray for you. You assume that only includes those in this world, but we don't.
It is no assumption, since Scripture elsewhere expressly forbids contact with the dead and in context, the passages you invoke above are addressed to people who are alive and are, for example, in the same local church - or is it your position that the departed when, let's say, James was read aloud for the first, were present in the room.
In addition, let's suppose that it would apply to those who are trained this way in this and are dead. As has been pointed out to you before. Teaching or asking a living person to pray for you after he dies isn't equivalent to you praying to the deceased.
It is your stated view, as you well know from elsewhere, that this practiced as existed from the beginning. Where is your evidence? I'm still waiting.
T: I'll just point out that this practice has an ancient tradition - in Japan
O: Are you seriously arguing that Orthodoxy went to Japan to acquire this teaching?
T: Come on, Orthodox, we both know that there's no historical evidence of such prayers within Christianity before the 4th century at the very earliest.
O: Since you censored the part of my posting with the evidence, there's not much point continuing this conversation is there?
T: I think you can easily guess what the purpose would be. After all, what if St. Seraphim (or any of the other myriad of Orthodox Saints) was a fraud, and is in hell?
O: What if St Paul was a fraud and is in hell?
Orthodox:
You wrote: "Are you seriously arguing that Orthodoxy went to Japan to acquire this teaching?"
I respond: Not at all. I selected Japan because of the foolishness of the counter-assertion (were I to pick the ancient pagans of Europe) that they might have taken the practice from Christianity. It was a widespread pagan practice, Japan is evidence of that.
The non-published part of your post essentially admitted that the historical documentation isn't there. If there is historical documentation (not speculation based on legend), please feel free to bring it up. Other "Orthodox" advocates have been unable to do so. I think we both know that it is not because they were less resourcesful than you.
-Turretinfan
That last line should either be: "had less resources" or "were less resourceful" - but you get the point.
They were just as well (if not better equipeed) and could not present any historical documentation of the practice before the 3rd or 4th century.
-Turretinfan
G: A community is composed of individuals. So, if you do, indeed do this, I'll take this as an admission that you are acting outside your "community."
O: There is individual prayer and there is community prayer. The requirements for each are different.
G: And "veneration" and "praying to" saints are intersecting, but not convertible ideas. You've committed a category error.
O: Either way.
G: Notice that our champion of the one True Holy Apostolic Orthodox Church suddenly turns into quite the individualistic man when pressed, yet he castigates Protestants for this sort of thing on an ongoing basis.
O: Nonsense. There is always special requirements for corporate worship that don't apply to individuals. If I just started praying however I wanted in the middle of the service, how would that be?
G: , Orthodoxy feels free to make things up whole cloth as it goes along, utterly apart from Scripture.
O: Just empty accusation. Anybody can accuse anybody of making things up out of whole cloth. But your claim we got it from Japan is nonsense.
G: It is your stated view, as you well know from elsewhere, that this practiced as existed from the beginning. Where is your evidence? I'm still waiting.
O: You won't get it here since we have an active censor.
Orthodox:
My prayers will go to the Father in the name of Christ, regardless of where any of the apostles went.
Nevertheless, I know with absolute certainty that the Apostle Paul is waiting in heaven for judgment day.
-Turretinfan
O wrote: "You won't get [the evidence] here since we have an active censor."
I respond: Feel free to post your historical evidence. If you included some in your previous post, I must have missed it. I thought you speculated and admitted - in essence - that the earliest reference you can think of Chrysostom.
Considering that I can easily guess which reference in Chrys. you are thinking of (and why it does not support your position) - as well as considering Chry.'s birthdate (approximately) - I'd say you have to admit that you have no evidence for the first two hundred years from Christ's birth (not to mention the 5000+ years before His birth).
Incidentally, Gene, that's part of the Orthodox/Catholic problem: trying to set the clock by Pentacost instead of Creation.
From the beginning? Far from it.
-Turretinfan
"I think you can easily guess what the purpose would be. After all, what if St. Seraphim (or any of the other myriad of Orthodox Saints) was a fraud, and is in hell?"
The witness of the Church is that the intercessions of St Seraphim are effective. If they weren't effective, the church would stop doing it. It is self correcting.
Orthodox wrote: "The witness of the Church is that the intercessions of St Seraphim are effective. If they weren't effective, the church would stop doing it. It is self correcting."
I respond: Effective for what? Selling icons? And since when did "effective" become the test?
Prayers to which "saints" have been identified as ineffective and discontinued?
Noticeably, however, you have not answered the question posed, namely - what if Seraphim was a fraud and is in hell ...
Let me put it more bluntly: Does it bother you that you may be asking the damned to pray to God for you?
-Turretinfan
"I respond: Feel free to post your historical evidence."
I'm not going to repeat myself.
" that the earliest reference you can think of Chrysostom."
The only time I recall mentioning Chrysostom is the quote "It is tradition, look no further".
"Incidentally, Gene, that's part of the Orthodox/Catholic problem: trying to set the clock by Pentacost instead of Creation."
Yes well, being a Christian I believe the resurrection changed everything. Many departed in the old covenant were raised at that time (Matt. 27:52).
Orthodox:
I didn't want you to repeat yourself, I wanted you to provide evidence, if you had any. In a previously unpublished portion of your rejected post you listed only this "evidence."
"For example, the Liturgy of Saint James is dated by some to AD 60, and contains prayer to saints."
You and I both know that folks who date it that way do so - not because of historical documentation, i.e. evidence - but because of the asserted Jacobian authorship.
And - of course - even if he were the author, and it really were that old - there is no historically documented, i.e. evidenced, reason to suppose it was unchanged when saint praying was introduced into Christianity.
-Turretinfan
Orthodox also wrote: "Yes well, being a Christian I believe the resurrection changed everything. Many departed in the old covenant were raised at that time (Matt. 27:52)."
I respond: Irrelevant to our discussion. The Resurrection changed our prayer in one key way: that Christ has become our mediator.
We know that, because God said so.
Yet some of your (and DA's) "proof-texts" are pre-resurrection - so the "resurrection changed everything" argument is mere pretext.
-Turretinfan
O: There is individual prayer and there is community prayer. The requirements for each are different.
An assertion bereft of an argument. Notice that rather than rebut the rebuttal of just praying to anybody, Orthodox decides to talk about requirements for prayer. But nothing is laid out from Scripture -ever.
O: Either way.
Yes, either way, you made a category error. Thank you for this frank admission.
O: Nonsense. There is always special requirements for corporate worship that don't apply to individuals. If I just started praying however I wanted in the middle of the service, how would that be?
1. That's not my argument.
2. Notice again that, rather than defend his practice, he starts talking about worship services. But veneration of saints and prayer to them, of course, extends well beyond a worship service.
O: Just empty accusation. Anybody can accuse anybody of making things up out of whole cloth. But your claim we got it from Japan is nonsense.
On the contrary, until you come up with an exegetical foundation it is no empty accusation. By your own admission, we have to look to "Tradition" and that may or may not include Scripture. If this practice is not in Scripture and / or supported by it, then why should we not conclude that Orthodoxy is just crafting practices whole cloth?
And neither TF nor I said Orthodoxy got the practice from Japan. Rather, we were pointing to Japanese ancestor worship was an example of the sorts of places where we can find this sort of thing. What all three of us would call "ancestor worship" among pagans you call "veneration" and legitimize for yourself. That should tell you something.
O: You won't get it here since we have an active censor.
Unable to produce the evidence, Orthodox now accuses "the censor" of duplicity. His problem, of course, is that TF actually takes the time to address material in non-published comments.
T: You and I both know that folks who date it that way do so - not because of historical documentation, i.e. evidence - but because of the asserted Jacobian authorship.
O: Do they? I have no knowledge of that.
Of course, as far as being historically documentable, 2 Peter doesn't crop up until AD 200. Those who date it to AD 60 do so because of asserted Petrene authorship.
These are the conundrums you walk into daily when history and intellectualism is your rule of faith.
T: And - of course - even if he were the author, and it really were that old - there is no historically documented, i.e. evidenced, reason to suppose it was unchanged when saint praying was introduced into Christianity.
O: And the oldest manuscript for the trinitarian formula of Matthew 28 is... what AD three hundred and something? So when Christianity "introduced" trinitarianism, there is no evidence they weren't playing with the scriptures?
What you have is a radical lack of faith in God's providence in the Church passing down the true faith.
G: An assertion bereft of an argument.
O: I'm not arguing, I'm telling you the tradition.
G: But nothing is laid out from Scripture -ever.
O: Tell me the verse laying out sola scripture, then I'll have a reason to take your request seriously.
G: If this practice is not in Scripture and / or supported by it, then why should we not conclude that Orthodoxy is just crafting practices whole cloth?
O: Why not accuse us of making the canon and the scriptures out of whole cloth? Then you'll have no bible or canon since you stole it from us. Go join the Jesus seminar, you'll find a lot of friends.
Doghouse inadvertantly wrote elsewhere (moved at DH's indication): "Your representation of the communion of Saints here as a Christian belief and practice is sorely misappropriated."
a) I was not dealing with the communion of saints, but with communication with departed Christians. The modern Catholic misuse of that phrase ("communion of saints") would justify a separate post.
b) I didn't represent, much less misrepresent the Roman Catholic position on the issue: I asked some pointed questions.
DH continued: "If the practice were as you described - I would be against it too."
Now, perhaps you meant to refer to the practice as, say, Orthodox, describes ... as noted above - I haven't described the practice (unless you count my quotation of JP2, which could hardly be a misrepresentation).
DH continued: "Thanks be to God and His infinite grace and wisdom - it is not. A suggestion would be to attend RCIA instruction before representing beliefs and practice which you have little knowledge or understanding of."
A) Again, see above: and feel free to represent it yourself, if you like.
B) As for the stock complaint that critics simply do not understand, see here (link).
-Turretinfan
Post a Comment