Years ago in a debate with Roman Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid, James White (a Reformed apologist) rejected the findings of the seventh ecumenical council as it pertained to the veneration of icons and the saints they represent. The Second Council of Nicea, in short, said that both God and the Saints can be served, God by worship (a Greek term called “latria,” which literally means “service”) and the saints by veneration (a Greek term called “dulia,” which also literally means “service.”)
This is a distinction that James White rejects, as he views both veneration and worship as one and the same. In James White’s own words, his argument as to why the preceding is true may be summed up as follows:
The Greek Septuagint does not differentiate between the translation of those two words [latria and dulia from the Hebrew word of worship, abad] and we are forbidden…to abad anyone other than God. (52:30)
When we come to the New Testament… we discover that there is absolutely no distinction made between [dulia and latria] relevant to religious worship.
Because of the preceding, White concludes, there is no basis behind the latria and dulia distinction as laid forth in the ecumenical council. Being that God is given both dulia and latria in the Scriptures, to give dulia to a saint is equivalent to worshiping God–therefore idolatry.
Is James White correct in his conclusion? In short, no–because he is incorrect in his assertion that latria and dulia have identical applications in the Scriptures.
Latria in the Scriptures. There is no need to belabor our discussion on latria. In short, even though in classical Greek the word latria was used in the context of serving mortals as well as gods, in the Scriptures it almost always pertains to the service of God Himself (only twice in the whole Scriptures does it refer to pagan gods; LXX, NT). The term may be translated as “worship,” but contextually the translation “service” always fits better and etymologically makes more sense.
In short, in the Scriptures latria is an act of service on behalf of a deity.
Dulia in the Scriptures. James White claims that dulia is used as a synonym for latria in the Scriptures, and therefore it is inappropriate to make the distinction between latria and dulia. This is a half truth. In the following, we will show that dulia is an act of service on behalf of anyone or anything. It lacks the strong worship connotation that latria has. Hence, dulia may be performed to a deity, but as we shall see, it may also be used in non-religious contexts and given to inanimate things as well as men.
Dulia and Serving God. When the Scriptures refer to the Triune God being served (dulia), we often do not see service being referred to explicitly in a worship context. After all, serving God is not always worship, though it is of course rightfully done. This is why we “serve [dulia] God and” not “money” (Luke 16:13), “serve (dulia) God’s Law” (Rom 7:25), “serve (dulia) Christ” in fastings (Rom 14:18), and “serve (dulia) Him under one yoke” (Zeph 3:9, LXX). In the preceding, it would not make as much sense to use the word latria in any of these contexts as service specifically pertaining to worship does not appear in view in the preceding passages. Hence, the choice of the word dulia and not latria.
However, the preceding is not universally true in the Greek. An act of service (dulia) may also constitute an act of worship, though worship and service remain mutually exclusive. For example, 2 Chron 33:16 in the LXX states: “He built up the altar of the Lord, and offered thereon sacrifices of peace offerings and of thanksgiving, and commanded Judah to serve (dulia) the Lord, the God of Israel.” We can obviously see that what is being spoken of here are liturgical services–the literal nitty, gritty of making sacrifices. Sacrifice is an act of service used for worship. So, dulia may be used in the worship context–it is just not exclusive in its meaning like latria.
Dulia and Serving Other Parties. In the Scriptures, dulia is frequently used in reference to serving people and false gods (LXX, NT). We do have Scriptures where dulia is referred to in a religious context (i.e. “But then, indeed, when you did not know God, you served [dulia] those which by nature are not gods,” Gal 4:8). Yet, because the word dulia simply pertains to an act of service which may or may not be worship-related, it should not surprise us to see dulia used in contexts that are not religious at all (i.e. John 8:33, Rom 9:12, Ex 14:5 LXX).
We also see dulia pertaining to the service of other Christians, and not acts of worship (i.e. Phil 2:22, see also Gal 5:13 1 Tim 6:2). This is not true for a single usage of the term latria in the Scriptures, which mitigates against James White’s conflation of the terms.
It is worth interjecting here that the Orthodox position merely says we can service canonized saints akin to the way we serve living Christians (with reverence, respect, and love).
To sum up this section let’s cover passages that explicitly say when we serve (dulia) men we in fact serve (dulia) God Himself:
Bondservants, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ…with goodwill doing service (dulia), as to the Lord, and not to men (Eph 6:5, 7).
Bondservants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in sincerity of heart, fearing God. And whatever you do, do it heartily, as to the Lord and not to men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance; for you serve (dulia) the Lord Christ (Col 3:22-24).
Clearly, slaves are not being commanded to worship their masters, something that James White’s logic would demand in Eph 6:7 if dulia’s range of meaning was restricted to services that pertain strictly to worshiping God.
Rather, we may surmise that the Scriptural teaching is that when service is given to earthly men in certain situations, it by extension really serves God. This logic is clearly seen in the veneration of the saints, as Saint Jerome writes:
We, it is true, refuse to worship or adore, I say not [only] the relics of the martyrs, but even the sun and moon, the angels and archangels, the Cherubim and Seraphim…For we may not serve the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. [Romans 1:25] Still we honour the relics of the martyrs, that we may adore Him whose martyrs they are. We honour the servants that their honour may be reflected upon their Lord who Himself says:— he that receives you receives me [Matthew 10:40] (Letter 109, Paragraph 1).
Proskuneo (Reverence) in the Scriptures. James White does not really touch on the term proskuneo. Nevertheless, it is worth discussing because it helps us understand the the concept of worship within the context of Biblical language. Proskuneo is almost always used to mean “reverentially worship” in the New Testament. For example, Matt 4:10 states, “You shall worship (proskuneo) the Lord and Him alone you shall serve (latria).” The one key exception is Matt 18:26, where a servant falls on his knees (proskuneo) and begs his master to forgive his debt. Jesus in telling this parable was aware that the word commonly meant worship (as it is used throughout the New Testament), but otherwise may be legitimately rendered “prostrated.” We see this translation used in the Old Testament, such as in 1 Sam 20:41. In choosing this word in Matt 18:26 for the slave prostrating to his master, Christ was cluing His listeners that the master was a type for God Himself.
Conclusion. James White asserts that:
True Biblical worship includes both concepts [of dulia and latria] together. That’s why the Greek Septuagint does not translate it [abad] with one particular word, because the Hebrew word is richer than that. (55:19)
And what James White says here is true. Worship is a very rich word, and the way we worship God is sometimes an overt act and sometimes it is simply by how we live and treat others. Conceding this much, however, does not justify White’s opposition to the Second Council of Nicea.
It may be true to say that James White’s confusion stems from an overly simplistic treatment of the Greek terminology. After all, just because God can be served (dulia) that does not make the term equivalent to (latria) nor something done exclusively to God, as the preceding shows. However, we think there is something more profound behind Mr. White’s misapprehension of the distinction between dulia and latria.
I posit that the root cause of his difficulty in differentiating between latria and dulia is that he misapprehends what us true worship in the Scriptures.
When Orthodox offer dulia to the saints, we serve them through prayers and veneration–but we do not consider this worship. This is not because we are ignorant of the Scriptures. In fact, it is on Scriptural grounds that we do not consider simply paying homage and asking for prayer as exclusively worship-related. This is because the saints do not receive sacrifices, which is the proper and normative way in the Scriptures of worshiping any deity.
Service, unless it is sacrificial, is not worship. This is a Biblical distinction White does not make due to his own extra-biblical tradition.
Whether our sacrifice is financial, or an offering of praise or song, or Eucharistic, or whatever else it makes no real difference–a sacrifice is what constitutes true worship. “We know what love is in that Christ laid down His life for us” (1 John 3:16). Sacrifice is the essence of love and devotion–this we give exclusively to God.
Service in a more general sense, though still a positive good, can be given to anyone or anything. We ask people we respect for prayers and pay them homage in varying ways all the time–and none of us confuse this is as worship. Rather, we honor God when we do these things rightly.
As Saint Jerome points out, service that brings honor to God’s people in fact honors God Himself. After all, if we may serve God by serving Earthly men, especially harsh slavemasters (1 Pet 2:18), it is right to serve God by serving our Christian brothers and sisters. And this being the case, how much more true is this for the saints, whose memories are worthy honor and whose prayers are heard in heaven by God Himself (Rev 6:9-11)?
James White may comfortably cite Saint Jerome when he argues that other (allegedly more ignorant) church fathers have the wrong Biblical canon. But, he will remain incapable of understanding Jerome’s view on the veneration of saints until he understands what worship really is. If we rightly defined what worship includes in the Scriptures, we would never confuse requests for prayers and lofty praises (something that James White himself receives from his listeners and fans) with literal idolatry.
Help Grow the Orthodox Church in Cambodia!
Has this article blessed you? Please bless the Moscow Patriarchate’s missionary efforts in Cambodia to bring the Gospel to a people who have not heard it!
$1.00
Orthodox Christian Theology 
Craig–
1. As far as I can tell, the use of latria/dulia/hyperdulia is as doctrinal terms more or less unconnected to Scripture.
2. I don’t believe either dulia or hyperdulia even appear in the text of the Second Council of Nicea.
3. “Dulia” (in Scripture) does NOT mean ‘service,’ but rather ‘servitude.’ In other words, it has the connotation of total commitment and/or submission. (“Doulos” means ‘bondservant’ or ‘slave.’)
Are we to be bondservants to Saints in Glory? How is that appropriate? Since they are no longer in this life we are living, that sounds suspiciously like worship. I can serve YOU as it behooves a bondservant of Christ to do. And I can minister to you as though it were unto Christ. But how do I “serve” a departed Saint? I cannot pet-sit their dog or mow their lawn or bring them chicken soup or give them a hug. I cannot “serve” them as I can a living sinner-saint. I can merely honor them or emulate them or respect them. (Unfortunately, the verb “douleuein” is not particularly applicable in portraying these actions. There are perfectly good Greek verbs that clearly represent simple veneration. Why not use them?)
I already serve human masters
Oh, and what James White receives from his listeners and fans has almost NOTHING in common with what the reigning “Queen of Heaven” receives…and you darn-well know it!
Maybe we Protestants should put in a side altar or two to James White or John Piper…and see what the RC’s and EO’s have to say about it. (What d’ya think? Idolatry maybe?)
I keep threatening to put up a statue of Martin Luther in my front lawn to offset all the Mary’s and Francis’s in my highly RC hometown. (Should I prostrate myself when I ask him to pray for me?)
There are no altars for the saints
Amusingly, there is now a statue of Luther standing in the Vatican until kingdom come.
So then, Mary is NOT a saint? And plenty of those altars contain the relics or bones of saints.
The National Basilica in Washington, DC, dedicated to Mary, contains something like 32 side altars commemorating Mary. In fact, the entire church has only one depiction of Christ other than as a baby in his mother’s arms. I know that that is RC, but you are, in essence, supporting the practice.
The explanation of asking the saints to pray for you as one would ask a living friend (here and now) is a complete sham. You don’t make other requests of a friend (for courage, for healing). And you don’t ask them to pray for you in proxy. No, you ask them to JOIN you in prayer to the Father. (And even if you go to someone you believe to have a charismatic gift of healing, you ask them to pray God on your behalf. You do not pray to them for healing.)
The National Basilica in Washington, DC, dedicated to Mary, contains something like 32 side altars commemorating Mary. In fact, the entire church has only one depiction of Christ other than as a baby in his mother’s arms. I know that that is RC, but you are, in essence, supporting the practice.
Hans, One depiction of Christ? You forgot to mention that Christ is actually present in the Tabernacle. If you understood that, you wouldn’t get caught up in how many depictions of Mary there are because after all, they are only depictions.
RC churches have “Mary and Joseph” altars, but the eucharist is not given to them. It is jsut a name. EO churches don’t have this practice. As for prayers for the saints, a healthy prayer life includes much more prayer to God, at least in Orthodoxy. Devotion to saints is just a logical outpouring of loving God’s people. We cannot help but love God’s people when we love God.
The question was not whether you have human masters, but whether it is appropriate to have angelic masters. In Hebrew, “angel” simply means ‘messenger,’ and there is no indication that they ever act as intermediaries with any of their own prerogatives. Does anyone ever submit to an angel? Or does one obey God as the originator of the message delivered?
Yes, we can owe allegiance to earthly politicians, employers, teachers, and pastors. But only for earthly reasons. We owe no obeisance to DEAD politicians or employers or pastors.
I have a deep respect for Augustine and Aquinas and Chrysostom and Clusent and Irenaeus. But I cannot wrap my mind around what it would even mean to SERVE them. I cannot serve them in any way whatsoever physically, morally, psychologically, spiritually. They have no need of me that I can even begin to imagine. (And I am beholden to their teaching only insofar as it conforms to God’s own truth.)
Do they have any power over me? Should I in some sense OBEY them? (Am I their bondservant? Isn’t that ridiculous on its face?) Is there any evidence from Scripture that there is any kind of structural hierarchy in heaven? Some are given greater responsibility, I guess. The least here on earth will be greatest in heaven. But is it ever inferred that there are echelons of power? (Is there even a need for layers of power in a sinless world? We humans will rule over/judge the angels in some way, but I have no clue what that even means. Do you?)
In all the pages of Scripture, no angel or prophet or saint is ever prayed to. Not a single one. Shouldn’t that cinch it? What are you going on?
If you want to reverence and respect and love and emulate those who have gone before us, go for it! No Protestant will consider stopping you for even one instant. But for some unknown reason, you wish to do much more than that, but still CALL it simple veneration.
It’s worship by another name. Have the strength of conviction to call it what it is. I don’t think anybody is being fooled. I can’t even see how a prospective convert would be. You guys must compartmentalize…or just capitulate to authority.
I admit, EO’s are far less egregious than RC’s on this score. But how in the world did you get here from where you were just a few years ago?
It’s not just EO. It’s also the Oriental Orthodox. How is it that the most ancient churches got something so basic wrong? They began worshiping saints and not a single church father rose up to denounce it. Don’t you find this odd?
Good point^^^ I would wonder about the same thing as a Protestant. Why is it that Christianity, everywhere, has all of these allegedly “unchristian” practices of the priesthood and saint veneration? We have Ethiopia and India, cut off from the western world from years, and when they are back in communication by the renaissance they are time capsules of earlier worship practice. Ironically, Ethiopia preserved Jewish Christian practices, so early are some aspects of their belief.They look nothing like Protestantism, but they affirm their similarities with Orthodoxy.
Allow me to argue Hans’ point. Ethiopia was re-evangelized during the time of Athanasius. India, being that they used Syriac, were likely evangelized again in the 5th and 6th centuries. So, in reality, what was “worldwide Christianity” really was Roman-Empire Christianity.
The question is, whether Christianity in the entire Roman world could have been so thoroughly corrupted that all the original proto-Protestants disappeared without a trace. This, I find, is an untenable argument and a strange one to boot (after all, the guys who prayed to saints also bequethed us the Scriptures and the Canon). It would seem that Protestantism is an attempt to literally re-create a religion from pure scratch, as if the last Protestant church disappeared with the death of the Apostles, because every post-apostolic writing we have is clearly Orthodox.
Further, we must ask ourselves about liturgical customs. How did the early liturgies, which originated from at least the fourth centuries, all contain Marian veneration? DId the Christians, who survived persecution into the 4th century, suddenly and momentously changed when it was no longer illegal to be Christian? There is some point where we realize that unless there is something obviously wrong with veneration, there is no consistent basis to oppose it.
Craig-Allow me to argue Hans’ point. Ethiopia was re-evangelized during the time of Athanasius. India, being that they used Syriac, were likely evangelized again in the 5th and 6th centuries. So, in reality, what was “worldwide Christianity” really was Roman-Empire Christianity.
Me-I agree with this. My point is where is the outrage? We have so many writings of Fathers taking on heretics and heretics taking on Fathers. You have meetings and councils dealing with icons, baptism, etc… but nothing on the error of praying to the saints (a matter of one’s salvation, no less). The only explanation that makes sense to me is that it was not controversial. From the protestant point of view, this is equivalent to worshiping. No small matter. Imagine the RCC going to an ancient Protestant community trying to evangelize them. How many would be willing to give up their lives rather than kneel down an pray to a saint. Yet this supposedly happened and we have no evidence of anyone standing up for truth on the topic from either side.
Craig-Further, we must ask ourselves about liturgical customs. How did the early liturgies, which originated from at least the fourth centuries, all contain Marian veneration? DId the Christians, who survived persecution into the 4th century, suddenly and momentously changed when it was no longer illegal to be Christian? There is some point where we realize that unless there is something obviously wrong with veneration, there is no consistent basis to oppose it.
Me-this is another wonderful point.
I’ve been reading your blog more frequently and frankly I’m no longer 100% sure whether RCC split from EO or vice versa. What I am sure of is that Protestants created a new religion and will continue to believe this until I can find some proof that these proto-Protestants existed.
Thanks for pushing me out of my RCC comfort zone and sharing what you are learning in your EO journey.
Thank you for the kind words. I will pray for wisdom for you. I am more looking to convert Protestants, because they are obviously wrong. As for EO versus RC…I am not 100% sure. I have told my (EO) priest, just like I told Fr Max who comments here, is that I would convert to RC if I believed them to not be in schism. So, I hope you being out of your “comfort zone” ultimately strengthens your resolve to stay in the RC Church, presuming they are not in schism, or to enter into the Orthodox Church, presuming they have no committed the sin of schism. To me, it’s all about not being in the schismatic body. Perhaps I can email you a chapter of my study on the subject, but I believe that it is almost impossible to discern who is in schism without discerning the historic epistemology of the Church. In short, EO is a historic epistemology of consensus and RC is a historic epistemology of consensus and/OR papal supremacy. So, when RCs appeal to the Papacy, this is not some sort of innovation. It is historic Christian doctrine, but it is specifically Roman. It appears the rest of the Church was EO in its outlook for a long time in my humble view.
GOd bless,
Craig
Thanks Craig.
I’d love to read the relevant chapter. Feel free to email me.
I have your email? Then you must have mine, its just my name at gmail without spaces, send me an email and ill respond.
that is actually factually incorrect. What do you think the second Council was for? have you heard of iconoclasm? a lot of people rose up but those in power won. You do know that athanasius was in the minority against heretical arian bishops! so the majority does not always mean truth. There are early writings going back to early 2nd cenutry i believe admonishing the curches for having drawings.
“In all the pages of Scripture, no angel or prophet or saint is ever prayed to. Not a single one. Shouldn’t that cinch it? What are you going on?” This is a good point. I think every EO doctrine can be defended explicitly from the Scriptures. Veneration of saints cannot be defended explicitly, rather it is a good and necessary consequence of the Scriptures.
“It’s worship by another name. ” I used to think that. But, I realized that even simpletons were able to discern the difference. It is only those on the outside who cannot.
“I admit, EO’s are far less egregious than RC’s on this score. But how in the world did you get here from where you were just a few years ago?” The conviction that 1 Cor 2 is true, and if it is true, then the testimony of the Christian life amongst the martyrs and saints of the first few centuries of the Church cannot be ignored.
God bless,
Craig
C–
When we go back to the Apostolic Church, there was no such thing as the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church or the Oriental Orthodox Church. They simply are not ancient ENOUGH to go back to the very beginning, and therein lies the rub. They are the visible, worldly winners in the scrap for survival. Does that make them theologically continuous with the Apostles? I don’t think so. And the proof in the pudding is they find it unsatisfactory to hang their hats solely on the words of the Apostles.
Even some groups which go back as far as they do, such as Gnostics and Nazarenes, are not orthodox…and NOBODY thinks that they are. The Scriptures are the ONLY thing which is verifiably ancient enough. Everybody agrees that these embody the teachings of the Apostles of Jesus. We should come together as one around them. Anybody who doesn’t foments theological schism.
Apologies, I had my name as C this is actually CK.
Hans-When we go back to the Apostolic Church, there was no such thing as the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church or the Oriental Orthodox Church. They simply are not ancient ENOUGH to go back to the very beginning, and therein lies the rub. They are the visible, worldly winners in the scrap for survival. Does that make them theologically continuous with the Apostles? I don’t think so. And the proof in the pudding is they find it unsatisfactory to hang their hats solely on the words of the Apostles.
Me-The words of the Apostles never said that you only needed their Hans, this is the irony I am never able to get past. The Roman Catholic Church is the visible winner that provided you with most of your theology and the church God chose to safe keep the bible you now solely rely on. God relied on what you consider a cult or maybe worse to safe keep his written Word.
You rely heavily on men who were part of a cult (you believe we worship Mary) to get your Scripture and then proceed to dismiss them. Very adhoc. The bible did not fall from the sky.
Hans-Even some groups which go back as far as they do, such as Gnostics and Nazarenes, are not orthodox…and NOBODY thinks that they are. The Scriptures are the ONLY thing which is verifiably ancient enough.
Me-but you assume that what you call Scripture truly is Scripture. How do you know Hebrews is Scripture? The very church (cult?) you denounce decided for you. It can only be verified because these men, who were member of a church who are not ancient enough, says it is so. How do you know they didn’t change words in your Scripture to fit their teachings? Maybe John 6 really didn’t happen and they added it in to sell their heretical teaching on the Eucharist. The Church you denounce is the one that preserved the Word of God for future generations. They are the ones that interpreted it for Christians for 1500 years and now protestants come around and say that the Holy Spirit guided those bishops but only partially (only the books you happen to agree with). It’s all very adhoc. Since you that all you need is the Bible, doesn’t the cannon you possess better be 100% correct and complete? How do you verify this without original copies and using your invisible church and bible alone paradigm? Can you support leaving the 7 old testament books RC contains out of your bible using your paradigm?
Hans-Everybody agrees that these embody the teachings of the Apostles of Jesus. We should come together as one around them. Anybody who doesn’t foments theological schism.
Me-We agree because we have the faith that the Holy Spirit guided those “worldly winners”. The problem as you are well aware of is what do those words mean and one can’t fully understand it without a visible Church. Just like we would not agree that those are the teachings of the Apostles without that same visible Church.
Hans,
There’s a bit of circular reasoning that goes on when we get to this point in the discussion.
Nobody thinks that the Nazarenes and Gnostics were orthodox because their teachings were explicitly contradicted by the Scriptures and how the Church understood them.
The reason I say that this is circular is because the question quickly becomes, “Which of all the groups involved in the debate is correctly interpreting Scripture?”
The early Church could only point to Apostolic Succession to settle that question. In other words, faith in one’s institution grants certainty that one’s interpretation is correct and one knows that one’s interpretation is correct by knowing which interpretation one’s institution has historically endorsed.
James White likes to level the charge that the RCC believes in “sola ecclessia” as if he does not also trust the interpretive body he belongs to. He would say that if his interpretive body were to interpret the Scriptures erroneously, he would leave it. However, this leaves the individual as the ultimate authority when it comes to issues of interpretation. Perspicuity of Scripture is a tenet of Protestant groups that are clearly at odds with each other. This obviously doesn’t settle the question of correct interpretation of the Scriptures.
We can go back and forth about Greek and Hebrew words, syntax, and grammar and it would still boil down to: “Are we in communion with those that learned to interpret the Scriptures from the Apostles themselves?”
Yes, Freddie, the “induvidual is the ultimate authority when it comes to issues of interpretation,” which is exactly how it should be. In fact, no other alternative makes any sense.
As an historian, do you check in with some sort of “history tribunal” to figure out historical conundrums? Or do you do due diligence in researching your topic, coming to rational conclusions, and then arguing your best to persuade others of those conclusions?
Anyone who has the courage of his convictions–anyone who actually thinks for him or herself–is necessarily the “ultimate authority” when it comes to interpretation. Even if you cop out and rely on others to do your thinking for you, it is still YOU who is copping out.
Every issue in the entire history of human thought has variant interpretations. It’s the nature of the beast. We shouldn’t be sure of something because there’s only one interpretation out there…but because a particular interpretation (of perhaps many) has the strongest argumentation to back it up.
Scripture tells us that “iron sharpens iron.” If that is so, then a multitude of denominations might be a good thing. B. B. Warfield thought so. He taught a kind of “progressive orthodoxy” where the full counsel of God became apparent little by little over many years of our struggling together with Scripture.
Your way strikes me as somewhat cult-like and anti-intellectual. God gave us a mind that we might use it.
It also strikes me as opposed to what the early church fathers engaged in. Once they started taking on the perceived threat of proliferating heresies, they seldom appealed to any other authority than Scripture. Their arguments are literally inundated with biblical references.
Hans, I don’t disagree that the early church fathers primarily used Scripture when combating heresies and I also don’t deny that Christians should struggle with interpreting Scripture together.
My point is that rational argumentation and one’s understanding of the Scripture could be wrong. Our reaction can’t solely be to look at the text.
For example, in the field of history one has to look at old problems from all different angles and abandon arguments that don’t work, but one also has to use what other historians have found. I have to use their definitions of words, understand their historical context, and consider whether the status quo agrees with the evidence. Ultimately, I have to be able to defend my thesis against the arguments of historians working in that field. If my arguments don’t stand up to peer review, they will be dismissed and the orthodox positions on that issue will be maintained.
This is how the Orthodox Church deals with doctrine. The iconoclastic and Protestant position on the saints hasn’t, in our collective estimation, stood up under the weight of the biblical and historical data. As a result, the Church dismisses them.
Now, one can say, “The Church is wrong,” but they do so after discussingthe issues with the teachers in the Church and debating them. If two cannot agree, they can’t walk together. In the end, those that disagree leave for groups that they agree with. I don’t think it’s anti-intellectual or cultish, I think it’s normal to commune with those that are like-minded.
Freddie–
No scholar from any Christian tradition looks “solely at the text.” We all study (and incorporate into our argumentation) history and archaeology and cultural background and tradition and scholarship.
With that said, I agree with most of the rest of what you wrote.
In any of the soft sciences–history, philosophy, political science, economics–there are limitations on the effectiveness of peer review because of the various “schools of thought” that develop in each field.
In terms of church history, here in the U.S. at any rate, academia favors secular scholars, pushing Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical views to the periphery unnecessarily. It makes it difficult to determine whom one should see as his or her “peer.”
So yes, I happen to think your “collective estimation” is wrong and choose to walk apart. I don’t think you’re even close to being right on the issues which divide us: synergism and the de facto worship of the saints.
Craig–
1. The problem with “by good and necessary consequence” is that in practice it is seldom genuinely, rationally “necessary.” Is the Regulative Principle necessary? Is infant baptism necessary? They are possible interpretations, but hardly necessary. The Reformed use this phrase a lot to sanction some rather questionable conclusions. Let’s go with what is actually, clearly in the text.
2. That “simpletons understand it” in such-and-such a way is not an argument. Mormonism is populated by both simpletons and those with doctorates. The people of Israel THOUGHT they could discern the difference in terms of the Bronze Serpent. Turns out they couldn’t and it needed to be torn down.
Those on the outside may, on the one hand, have an anti-Catholic, anti-Orthodox agenda. On the other hand, they may simply be seeing something objectively which those on the inside are blinded to. (The fact that those who are fine with Marian devotion are fine with Marian devotion is also hardly an argument. Of course those on the inside believe insider tenets.)
3. I couldn’t follow your final point. Clarify what you meant in citing 1 Corinthians 2.
C and Craig–
I remember when I first heard the argument that virtually ALL of the continuing early churches (RC, EO, OO, Ethiopians, etc.) held to most of the non-Protestant distinctives, it threw me a bit.
But, as Craig points out, they really all are branches of a single Roman-Empire trunk.
So, is it tenable, that pretty much the entire visible church could adopt heretical notions?
And I would have to say an emphatic ‘yes’ to that question.
RC’s (and probably EO’s, as well) make much of the whole gates-of-hell-shall-not-prevail shtick. But WHAT church will prevail? Visible or invisible? The hierarchical church or the church of the faithful?
If we look at the congregation of Israel in the OT, promised the eternal faithfulness of the Father, we see a church that is seldom structurally or theologically orthodox. The very theme of the OT could be encapsulated by the slogan “A remnant shall return.” Elijah wonders whether he alone is left to carry on the tradition.
Josiah finds the “Book of the Law” while cleaning the Temple and proceeds to “recreate the religion from pure scratch.”
All that aside, what I think undeniable is the fact that the early post-Apostolic writings (the so-called Apostolic Fathers: things like the letters of Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch or the Didache) are clearly NOT akin to modern-day Rome or Constantinople! Almost all RC and EO distinctives are missing. No purgatory, no penance, no invocation of the saints, no Marian devotion, no papacy, no infant baptism….
How can you say that they “were clearly Orthodox” with a straight face? Look at how they depict Mary. A background figure at best. Spoken of only in connection with Christ’s birth, similar to her treatment in Scripture. Even as late as Nicea, the original creed doesn’t even mention Mary, but talks of the incarnation without bringing her into the matter.
Did anything change with the legalization of Christianity? Of course it did! You had a tremendous influx of “believers” who were believers in name only. You had people vying for power, now that there was actual power to vie for. I don’t know how much change these things created. But it’s hard to deny the potential was there.
And also, squabbles over core doctrines sometimes had repercussions on peripheral matters. Establishing Mary as “theotokos” in order to secure orthodox Christology brought about a demonstrable surge in Marian devotional practices.
By the way, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the veneration of the saints. They ought to be venerated, and Anglicans and Lutherans do so. But the very early church did not invoke them…and did not invoke Mary.
It would be easier to find common ground with RC’s and EO’s even on invocation if they lived up to what they say they believe. But they emphatically don’t. They are not merely asking the departed to join them in prayer to God.
Look at Catholic Marian prayers (if you dare…immanent thunder and lightning will overshadow you). The type of honorifics employed point to one thing and one thing only: goddess worship. Denounce them for it, and I’ll be more tolerant of Eastern Orthodox practices.
Look at Catholic Marian prayers (if you dare…immanent thunder and lightning will overshadow you). The type of honorifics employed point to one thing and one thing only: goddess worship.
Me-what prayer do you have in mind?
Yes, she is clearly a background figure because the Virgin is not part of the public proclamation of the Gospel. Anything having to do with the Virgin forms part of the Church’s mystical theology, something reserved for insiders (same for saints and iconography). This is why you don’t hear about these things in the Apostolic or early Post-apostolic fathers. They are mostly either writing to outsiders or writing about something totally different.
As a historian, I will admit an element of expansion regarding those things (the cult of the saints and icons), but they only grew to be more prominent in the Church; the teachings regarding those things did not significantly change.
Freddie–
I’m sorry, but you’re not much of an historian if you don’t know that the writings of the Apostles and those of the Apostolic Fathers were almost exclusively written to insiders.
Hans, I was thinking of St. Justin Martyr as one writing to outsiders. Think about what they’re discussing in these writings and ask whether they needed to refer to the cult of the saints.
There was not much for them to refer to in the apostolic and early post-apostolic age. It seems to have been a much smaller, devotional practice back then.
You don’t get akathists, troparia, and any sort of specialized teaching about saints until about the 6th century.
My main point is: You don’t see the cult of the saints yet during that time because it just hadn’t become as big as it is now.
Freddie–
Well, sure, I was even going to mention Justin in your favor. He certainly was an apologist for the church to outsiders.
To a Protestant’s ears, if you make something way bigger or more prominent than it was in the beginning, then you HAVE significantly changed it. Emphases are not inconsequential. You cannot ramp up the importance of the Eucharist or the theotokos and say that you have retained the status quo.
So my answer to you is that it “wasn’t as big as it is now” because it wasn’t supposed to be.
Hans said – So my answer to you is that it “wasn’t as big as it is now” because it wasn’t supposed to be.
Me – now apply this line of thinking to Protestant traditions. Bible alone – early Christians were in no hurry to identify what writings were inspired. As a matter of fact Jesus never told the Apostles to write anything . the Apostles and their disciples main focus was on laying hands and using their authority to grant authority and spread the Gospel.
Difference in doctrine was settled with authoritative councils not new denominations. As a matter of fact, schism was frowned upon not embraced.
It was impossible for everyone to read and interpret scripture since most people could not read and even less had access to scripture.
I could go on and on…..
CK–
I predicted one of you might try to throw me on the horns of that dilemma. But I think Protestantism is up to the task, believe it or not.
Actually, Scripture was written very early on and circulated basically immediately. You’re right, though, that some flexibility between communities was exercised. Dogma and canon were not battoned down to the nth detail like we’re used to. That means, however, that we more or less had something similar to denominations: we had the Johannine community and the Andrine community and the Thomasine community, etc. Christianity was nowhere close to being monolithic hierarchically.
Jesus did appear to John in Revelation 1 and tell him to WRITE.
There’s almost no talk concerning authority in the Book of Acts. It’s not even clear sometimes who does and doesn’t have authority.
The Gnostic heresies during the Apostolic era were combatted by the writings of Paul, NOT councils. The Judaizers were basically condemned by the actions of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, but were also decried by Scripture. Ecumenical Councils don’t get going until 325 AD. Irenaeus’s “Against Heresies,” taking on the Gnostics came a long time before that. So, add treatises to the list of methods used.
Heresies, then and now, tend to be fought by theologians and pastoral leadership, not by the rank and file. The clergy have, for the most part, always, been able to read and write. Perhaps not in parts of the Middle Ages, but otherwise yes.
*****************************
I will agree that the early years of the church do not look either Orthodox/Catholic or Protestant, but a tertium quid. It’s a tough business for all of us to determine what the seeds of that early time should grow into. Are they acorns for a Catholic oak, or helicopters for a Protestant Maple, or pine nuts for an Orthodox conifer?
How would you suggest we figure that out?
CK–
I am positing that the church was the church, quite legitimate and Apostolic, for the first 250 to 300 years. The canon was more or less complete by then, so you have no argument.
Even if I were to grant you some ambiguity on the inclusion of peripheral books, who cares? If we include 1 Clement or Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians or the Didache or the Shepherd of Hermas, no harm whatever is done to the Gospel. If we leave out Philemon or 2 Peter or 3 John, again, no harm is done to the Gospel. No theological tenet hinges on these books.
Likewise, nothing whatever hinges on the likes of Judith or Bel and the Dragon. Put them in. Take them out. I don’t care. Nothing would change either way.
Be that as it may, all I really need is history to establish canon. What books were used on a widespread basis over a long period of time? What books held a consensus of opinion within the church that they were Holy Writ? What books were written by Apostles or their close associates? What books taken together form a coherent whole? I can do this from scratch. I have absolutely no need for Rome.
Hebrews is one of the greatest pieces of literature ever written. If it is not self-attesting, nothing is. If it’s not Scripture, nothing is. Again, we have no need of Rome. The Magisterium is entirely superfluous.
Two things:
1. How did the Church universally fall into the error of ancestor veneration in the 4th century, especially when we know it was an earlier Jewish practice and we have (potential) archaelogical evidence of a third century prayer to Mary?
2. If the prayer of a righteous man availeth much, and God is not the God of the dead but of the living, is it not logical to ask the living (in glory) saints for prayer?
CK–
So, you’d have me believe you’ve never prayed a prayer to Mary in church before?
You cannot have done so at Mass without hearing plenty of over-the-top examples strewn with grandiose honorifics.
It’s not like some well-kept secret.
Hans,
My apologies, I thought you were addressing a specific prayer. Yes I’ve said many Hail Marys. I really don’t see how it’s worship. A prayer simply means request. Protestants change the meaning to only mean worship and expect everyone to toe the line. Is your issue with it that we make requests to someone that has passed away and in heaven or the word prayer?
Hans – So, you’d have me believe you’ve never prayed a prayer to Mary in church before?
Me – privately, see below.
Hans – You cannot have done so at Mass without hearing plenty of over-the-top examples strewn with grandiose honorifics.
Me – We don’t pray to Mary at Mass. It seems you haven’t been to a Mass.
Hans – It’s not like some well-kept secret.
Me – The Mass is open to all, even if Communion isn’t. You are welcome to visit and listen carefully. Or you can watch one on television or YouTube. You can even privately check out the Eucharistic Prayers prayed at Mass — they’re widely and freely available, no secret. You obviously know the Nicene Creed’s reference to Mary. Those two parts of the Mass are the only parts where Mary is mentioned, unless it’s a Feast dedicated to her honor, in which an opening prayer TO GOD praises Him for creating her, and then a closing prayer reiterates praise to God for the same. On the other hand, the Divine Liturgy of the Eastern Traditions mention Mary a great deal more than we Western Catholics.
Craig–
1. As far as I know, Jews have never invoked the favor of departed prophets and saints. They venerate them, period. I’ve already said that that’s perfectly fine.
The “Sub Tuum” is variously dated, perhaps third, but perhaps fourth century. Not much to go on.
2. Personally, I have little problem with asking the saints to pray FOR us or WITH us. They may or may not be conscious. And if they are, they may or may not be omniscient enough to hear us. The elders in Revelation merely pass the prayers of the faithful on to the Father. There is no interaction with them. Be that as it may, I can’t see where it would hurt anything to give it a try. The Jews always had the tradition of our worship being joined by angels and archangels…and I think, the departed, as well.
But that is simply NOT what is done. I accepted the notion at first, giving Catholics and Orthodox the benefit of the doubt. I cannot do that any more. You all are lying, and I don’t know how else to put it. You pray TO the saints…without any shadow of a doubt. And THAT is worship!!!
Definition of pray
transitive verb
1 : entreat, implore —often used as a function word in introducing a question, request, or plea pray be careful
2 : to get or bring by praying
intransitive verb
1 : to make a request in a humble manner
2 : to address God or a god with adoration, confession, supplication, or thanksgiving
Hans, you continue to force your definition of prayer on us!!!! When we pray to saints we are making a request (def #1) when we pray to God we are using definition #2. It’s not a difficult concept.
Now please argue your position based on our meaning of the word.
intransitive verb Definition
1. Actually, we do have records of Jews asking for prayers from departed jewish rabbis, but these documents i think are 3rd century at the earliest.
2. Yes, the prayer to the theotokos may be legitimately dated to 4th century as well. but again, so can the council of nicea, so if they were all heretics, then they got the Trinity and the Canon wrong too.
3.I do “pray” do saints. I ask for prayers and sometimes for healing (I have an icon of St Abigail of Ireland, she was a healer in her earthly life.) But even then, spiritual gifts come from God, so it would still be God healing–just like when Peter and Paul healed. If someone asked them for healing during their respective ministries, they were not being idolaters or polytheists.
God bless,
Craig
CK–
The “Hail, Mary” itself is actually fairly unproblematic. “Full of grace” is a blatant mistranslation of the Greek, but the prayer simply requests Mary to pray FOR us “now and in the hour of our death.”
Most Catholic prayers to Mary address her in terms interchangeable with those used in prayers to Christ. If you cannot see that, then all I can say is that I will view you as having a huge blindspot when it comes to this…or that you are just plain disingenuous. It is self-evident to the nth degree.
Here is a a common Orthodox refrain: “Most Holy Theotokos save us.” But, here’s another that is addressed to God: “Through the prayers to the Theotokos saves us.” So obviously, it is her prayers that we are saved through (just as our prayers can saved the lost as well.) She does not atone for sins or do anything else substantial to save…other than making salvation possible by the birth of the Lord of course.
CK–
I’m quite aware of your usual explanation.
I’m saying that you cannot say you are walking when I see you take off as fast as you can with your feet not touching the ground at each bound forward. I’m accusing you of out-and-out hypocrisy. I do not do so lightly. I cannot for the life of me imagine any other possibility.
Craig–
But you’re not really trying to say that I can pray, “O, most chaste and holy St. Craig of Truglia, save us”? (Even though, as you say, we can be saved through your prayers.)
It’s just extraordinarily sloppy, imprecise rhetoric at the very least. But more than that, on the whole, it’s just not true in any straightforward sense.
Well, being I am not canonized it would be best not to call me a saint–but yes…if you lived in medieval europe, it would be fine to say “most holy and luminous Craig of Truglia, your worship, deign to pray for me.” People used to talk like that.
The magistrate in England is still acknowledged as your worship. We say your honor. Prayers, specially old prayers are very poetic and over the top sounding (much like a love letter) and can sound in modern times as worship. I believe there are old Mary prayers that say we “worship “ you. This would scandalize most people today. What they were saying is we “honor” you in modern language.
When you recite old prayers you don’t go back and reword it to fit it with new meaning of words. It loses its beauty. You just need to take the time to understand the original meaning.
When you force modern meaning to ancient words in ancient prayers you end up with misunderstandings. Add to that a misunderstanding of the RCC/EO theology and you end with accusations of idol worship.
Hans,
We know were the source of power comes from. When the Apostles healed we know they didn’t do it and couldn’t do it by themselves.
When you bring someone to Christ that person can say “Hans brought me to Christ” or I thank God “Hans brought me to Christ” but we all know you were just an instrument of God and You WITH the power of the Holy Spirit accomplished this. Not because God needs you but because He chose it to be this way.
The flowering language that’s added to the prayers of the saints and Mary is to show our love, honor and acknowledge their particular sufferings and what they overcame among other things.
This is how the ancient Christians prayed and is part of our culture today. Your Christian culture is new and different.
Craig–
1. Thanks for the info on the prayers of the early Rabbi’s. I’ll look into that. Of course, you do know that even fairly mainstream Rabbinic Judaism got heavily involved in Gnosticism.
2. A Christian sect can be considered heretical even if they get most things right. Besides, one can fairly easily work out the Trinity and the canon without the Ecumenical Councils.
3. Again, I don’t have a problem if you want to ask St. Abigail to pray for you. But if you pray TO Abigail for healing–as if she were the source–then you are indeed being idolatrous.
When you pray to St. Abigail, don’t you pray the Father, as well? I mean, you’re not trying to do an “end around,” are you? You’re praying along WITH St. Abigail TO the Father, right? Surely you don’t prefer her counsel or her gifts to his.
4. Tell me this. (CK can answer this, as well.) How, in your opinion, would an idolatrous prayer to a saint sound…in conradistinction to how an orthodox prayer sounds?
Let me try:
1. Makes sense, its not a be all end all argument. The testimony of Christian martyrs, given the grace of perseverance, is much stronger because the Spirit bears witness.
2. I think this is inconsistent. It leads to epistemological doubt because it is so inconsistent, one does not know if he strained the gnat and then swallowed the camel. Better to swallow the gnat.
3. Well, I can ask St Abigail for healing–I just must do so with the understanding she heals by the power of God. For example, priests in Orthodoxy still use holy unction (they heal with oil like in James 5). If you were to ask your priest to heal you with holy unction, this would NOT be an acknowledgement of man healing apart from God. We have an understanding that unction heals only by the grace of God, hence it being a sacrament.
4. I suppose if I prayed, “St Mary, my creator and savior, save my soul by your sufferings. Jesus Christ, you too same my soul my your sufferings.” Such a prayer would clearly make the two equals and ascribe divinity to a mortal.
God bless,
Craig
Craig–
Though the Theotokos–may she be ever blessed–was intimately involved in procuring our salvation, she has no power to save. We must not ascribe to her abilities she does not have, especially abilities which God alone possesses!
She has a sort of power to save. In the historical sense, her giving birth made salvation possible. Further, she can intercede in prayer and God saves us through the prayers of us all.
CK–
1. Hans doesn’t bring anybody to Christ. He introduces them perhaps, but the Father draws them.
2. There is a controversy in Evangelical circles that too much Contemporary Christian music have sappy, sentimental lyrics. These songs are satirically said to imply that “Jesus is my boyfriend.” So, you all write flowery love letters to Mary, huh? Sounds like you have a similar problem.
What do you do with the fact that after you have used up all these over-the-top “sweet nothings” on Mary you have nothing left over for Jesus? (Oh, sorry, Jesus, I know I just used these exact words on Mary, but you know I love you more, right?)
3. It’s funny that you’d call Protestant culture “new.” The Reformers looked around, took stock of the church, and mumbled, “Where’d all this newfangled stuff come from?” So they ditched all the accretions and went back to the beginnings of the faith.
Conversely, John Henry Cardinal Newman looked around, saw all kinds of newfangled stuff and exalted, “The Holy Spirit has guided us into all truth! Let’s call it, um, I dunno, the Development of Doctrine. Yeah, yeah, that sounds good for all these nifty innovations.”
Hans-1. Hans doesn’t bring anybody to Christ. He introduces them perhaps, but the Father draws them.
CK-That my point, but we don’t necessary speak that way though it’s understood that’s the case (if one is properly catachised)
Hans-2. There is a controversy in Evangelical circles that too much Contemporary Christian music have sappy, sentimental lyrics. These songs are satirically said to imply that “Jesus is my boyfriend.” So, you all write flowery love letters to Mary, huh? Sounds like you have a similar problem.
CK-If they are losing sight of who Jesus is then that’s a problem. Same thing with Mary or anything else for that matter. Money, power, etc…
Hans-What do you do with the fact that after you have used up all these over-the-top “sweet nothings” on Mary you have nothing left over for Jesus? (Oh, sorry, Jesus, I know I just used these exact words on Mary, but you know I love you more, right?)
CK-are you serious? Do you think God cares if you say I love you to your wife 5 times a day but only twice to Him?
Mary takes nothing from God. If she is not leading you to a closer relationship with her Son then there is an issue. As Mary says “her soul magnifies the Lord.” Tell me, how does Mary’s soul magnify the Lord for you if you don’t venerate her?
Do you ever think about her other than on Christmas? I don’t know of a single person who has a devotion to Mary that has not developed a closer relationship with Jesus. Not saying idolatry does not exist, but it’s not the Church’s teaching.
Hans-3. It’s funny that you’d call Protestant culture “new.” The Reformers looked around, took stock of the church, and mumbled, “Where’d all this newfangled stuff come from?” So they ditched all the accretions and went back to the beginnings of the faith.
CK-New stuff like the Eucharist as the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ? How baptism saves us? Losing one’s salvation? Yep, middle age innovations…
Can you point me to the Father’s that were members of this new beginnings? Don’t point to any Father who was member of a Church who couldn’t get the basic commandment that we should worship one God. So if they are members of a Church endorsed praying TO saints and you consider this idolatry then they can’t be trusted.
Hans-Conversely, John Henry Cardinal Newman looked around, saw all kinds of newfangled stuff and exalted, “The Holy Spirit has guided us into all truth! Let’s call it, um, I dunno, the Development of Doctrine. Yeah, yeah, that sounds good for all these nifty innovations.”
CK-yes the development of Doctrine like the Trinity, Mary as mother of God, Hypostatic union…
Craig–
Indirectly “making salvation possible” is not at all the same as actually saving someone…in any sense. When a lifeguard pulls us out of the water, we don’t track down his mother and thank her for saving us. That is, pure and simple, a misuse of language.
Hans,
If the lifeguard’s mom agreed to be impregnated by God (at great personal risk) knowing that the lifeguards’s purpose was to somehow pull us out of the water, then yes we should find her and thank her! Her yes allowed it to happen. Again, could God have done it differently? Yes! But he didn’t.
To try to make the Mother of God No different than the average Sue is incomprehensible to me. You are throwing away the baby with the bath water.
Your idolatry paranoia is leading you to unreasonable conclusions, imho.
http://www.orthodox.net/services/morning-prayers.html These are the prayers I do every morning make your own judgement. Of course I add my own unpoetic prayers
CK–
1. What “yes” are you talking about? Read the text again. Mary wasn’t given an option. Now, she wasn’t coerced. But she submitted. She didn’t volunteer.
2. The Chalcedonian Definition makes the Latin “Mater Dei” problematic. Much better to stick with the Greek “Theotokos.”
Average Sue? So unless she’s a cross between Wonder Woman and a Norse Shield Maiden, she’s just an “average Sue”? Your goddess-worship skirts are showing.
3. So 750 million Protestants are all “paranoid”? Clear-sighted would be more accurate.
1. What “yes” are you talking about? Read the text again. Mary wasn’t given an option. Now, she wasn’t coerced. But she submitted. She didn’t volunteer.
CK-What? One never means “yes” unless they volunteer? She was told what was going to happen and she said yes. She submitted. If she did not have the freedom to say no then she was in a way coerced (forced to do something she did not want to do).
When Jesus submitted to the Father’s will did he not have a choice? That would make Jesus sacrifice on the cross meaningless.
-This is were one ends up when one tries to diminish Mary’s role.-
Jesus – And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt. MK 14:36
Mary-And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. LK 1:38
If Jesus’s response meant yes, so did Mary’s.
If you read carefully, Jesus actually asked the cup be taken from Him, but submitted anyway (said yes). Mary never said don’t do this to me but I’ll submit anyway. She just submitted (said yes).
2. The Chalcedonian Definition makes the Latin “Mater Dei” problematic. Much better to stick with the Greek “Theotokos.”
Average Sue? So unless she’s a cross between Wonder Woman and a Norse Shield Maiden, she’s just an “average Sue”? Your goddess-worship skirts are showing.
CK-I’m not sure what point you are trying to make.
3. So 750 million Protestants are all “paranoid”? Clear-sighted would be more accurate.
CK-I know all Protestants don’t think the same way you do.
CK–
1. I hear that alot–if properly catechised–and yet even Catholics talk about what a horrible job they do catechising. You guys’ over-the-top rhetoric is a stumbling block to Protestants even considering your claims and a stumbling block to poorly catechised Catholics (who are legion) becoming legalistic or idolatrous or immoral. Thomas Howard (an Evangelical convert to RC) estimates that 9 out of 10 American Catholics are inadequately catechised.
2. One local Catholic Church near where I live is named for Mary and has over forty depictions of her in the sanctuary to one for Jesus (the crucifix over the altar). So, yes, if you were to hang 40 pictures of your wife in the church sanctuary, God would care!
What does it mean that your acquaintances are “closer to Christ” because of Mary? I listen to Catholic radio all the time, and I would get disoriented if I started to hear as much of Christ as I do of Mary and the Church. (Hearing Scripture passages on air gives me cognitive dissonance!) Besides, you could ask a Word-Faith adherent if giving all of his life savings to the local church brought him “closer to Christ,” and he would say “names
3. Magisterial Protestants believe in the Real Presence. What does it mean that “baptism saves” if Dante can describe all kinds of baptized Catholics (including popes) populating hell? Doesn’t save very well, does it? Who is this “one” character who is losing his salvation? Not the elect, or you are going up against the likes of Augustine and Aquinas (hint: these are pretty big names in Catholic circles).
I’ve already pointed to the entirety of what are called the Apostolic Fathers (the very first wave of successors to the Apostles). They are pin-drop silent on Mary. There are NO invocations rising to the saints. There’s no purgatory, no penance, no auricular confession, no transubstantiation, no papacy. In a word, no Catholicism.
4. Development of Doctrine like hyperdulia, penance, confession, invocation of the saints, the immaculate conception, the assumption, papal infallibility, etc., etc., etc.
The Trinity, the Virgin Birth, and Christ as both God and Man…all fully Scriptural. Only the details needed to be worked out.
Hans-
You are all over the place. First do you now concede that Mary said yes?
Also, what christian tradition do you come from? As you know, protestants don’t all teach/believe the same thing.
9-10 Catholics are inadequately catechized? Maybe, but what exactly does he mean by that? Like they don’t know Jesus is God or more towards what the Eucharist is or why is it a sin to use birth control for family planning or that abortion is a sin.
Put Protestantism under one umbrella and all your theology as the rule of faith. I bet most Protestants would be inadequately catechized by your very own definition. So whether the Church does a good job catechizing (it should be priority) doesn’t mean what is taught by the magisterium is wrong. Paul catechized the Corinthians and they somehow became inadequately catechized after he left.
It’s not 40 pictures of my wife or yours in the sanctuary. It’s 40 depictions of Mary mother of Jesus whom He honors just like you should. Do you think Jesus is vain? He needs to see 40 depictions of Himself? We are asked to worship Him and and obey His commandments and that’s what we do. And we also honor other saints that came before us. Their witness is important. We are a family after all.
Hans-3. Magisterial Protestants believe in the Real Presence. What does it mean that “baptism saves” if Dante can describe all kinds of baptized Catholics (including popes) populating hell? Doesn’t save very well, does it? Who is this “one” character who is losing his salvation? Not the elect, or you are going up against the likes of Augustine and Aquinas (hint: these are pretty big names in Catholic circles).
Me-you do realize Dante really didn’t go to Hell right?
You are also showing your ignorance about Catholicism. One can lose their salvation. A Paul says one can fall from grace. Let me guess, you know you are the elect.
Doesn’t Augustine fall outside your Apostolic Fathers requirement? What Apostolic Father talks about the elect as you interpret it?
Purgatory is in Mac 2 and Corinthians. Prayers to the saints in Revelation, no auricular confession? so when it Jesus tells the Apostles whoever sins they forgive is forgiven and whoever sins they retain etc.. the people that tell their sins have to write it down??? This is “my body” is transubstantiation. If you must actually have the word the we need to throw out original sin, trinity etc…Clement (an Apostolic Father) was pope . I could address the rest but I have a suspicion your mind is made up.
ie. Mary couldn’t have said yes, because it hurts your cause.
So using your method using the Apostolic Fathers (they are the real legit fathers). Show support for sola scriptura, scripture in general, and whatever else you care to discuss that we don’t agree on. So far you all you have shown me is inconsistencies.
And he would say “yes.”
(Autocorrect on steroids.)
CK–
I am answering each of your points. If you know anything about dialogue, that will tend to appear “all over the place.” Would you rather I answer only certain points?
Mary was not coerced, but she did not volunteer. Scriptures are crystal clear on that.
It depends on whom you’re calling a Protestant. Magisterial Protestants are as unified as Catholics theologically. Evangelical practice is far more in line with their church’s morality and doctrine than Catholic practice is with theirs. Rome’s teaching could theoretically be correct, but they would still come in for censure in terms of disseminating it and enforcing it.
You show the world what your priority is when you plaster your churches with Mary’s image. It certainly displays where your love lies.
I’ve never met a Catholic who thought that Dante’s vision of hell was particularly off-base. I’m sure even you don’t believe that all baptized Catholics go to heaven. It is simply not a guarantor of salvation. So how does it save?
You didn’t answer the question of who the “one” was who purportedly lost his (or her) salvation. If he is elect, according to Catholic dogma, he CANNOT lose his salvation. Unlike Protestantism, if he is regenerate, he can lose that regeneration (i.e., he can lose his “state of grace”). Therefore, in Catholicism, the non-elect regenerate can indeed lose potential salvation, but not salvation itself. I cannot know for sure if I am a member of the elect, but in both Catholicism and Protestantism, I can be reasonably sure of it.
Paul says that NOBODY can fall out of the Savior’s hand…that NONE of the elect are lost.
It doesn’t impress me one little bit even if you are a cradle Catholic. Being inside the faith does not make you automatically an expert. Being outside the faith doesn’t make one automatically inferior in terms of familiarity with Catholic dogma. We’ll see who knows more.
Clement, Ignatius of Antioch, Barnabas, the author of the Epistle to Diognetus, and the author(s) of the Didache all refer to the concept of election. Is this really surprising? Both Thomism and Magisterial Protestantism (not mainlines but conservative strands) have always held to election.
2 Maccabees was not accepted, as far as I know, until the time of Augustine, and even then it was sometimes begrudgingly Jerome translated it but didn’t personally think it belonged in the canon since it had no Hebrew urtext. St. Athanasius’s whom Catholics point to in terms of his festal letter outlining the books of the NT, did NOT accept the Deuterocanicals as part of the canon. Be that as it may be, 2 Maccabees is not speaking of Catholic purgatory (the men who were prayed for were guilty of unrepentant mortal sin). 1 Corinthians 3 is speaking of the necessity of purgation–that we are purified of our sins before entering heaven–a concept held by both Catholics and Protestants.
Prayers are not addressed to saints in Revelation. They simply light the incense. The prayers are addressed to God. There is confession in Scripture, but it is neither mandated nor institutional. There is plenty of evidence for the Real Presence in Scripture and the early fathers, but nothing so systematic as transubstantiation. I hold that Mary did not volunteer because that is the way Scripture presents it. It is YOU who need her to say “yes” to undergird her glorious, out-of-this-world merit.
I don’t need to show Sola Scriptura. It is clearcut common sense. Scripture never tells you to use your common sense in reading Scripture…and yet you do! Cut it out. It’s unscriptural!! Heaven forbid that one should believe that Divine Revelation says what it means and means what it says. What a fantastical proposition!
Inconsistencies? Show me one. Anyone can assert such a thing.
Hans-I am answering each of your points. If you know anything about dialogue, that will tend to appear “all over the place.” Would you rather I answer only certain points?
CK-actually I rather we stick to the topic this post relates to. You seem well versed and I actually have to look things up to refresh my memory and verify my positions on many things. So many topics takes too much of my time.
Hans-Mary was not coerced, but she did not volunteer. Scriptures are crystal clear on that.
CK-That’s not the question. I said Mary said yes and you said she did not say yes because she submitted and did not volunteer.
The text clearly says she was troubled and asked how this would happen. She never hinted that she did not want it to happen and even if she did not want it to happen but freely submitted to God’s will then she said yes.
If submission means not saying yes as in some way not having the free will to say no then it sounds more like a master and slave relationship.
This led me to ask you whether or not Jesus said yes to the cross when he submitted to the Father’s will. Jesus clearly did want to do it but freely made the choice (submitted) to the Father’s will. See verses below and would you say Jesus said yes or was forced to the cross. If your answer is Jesus said yes then why wouldn’t you say the same about Mary?
Jesus – And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt. MK 14:36
Mary-And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. LK 1:38
CK–
I only diverged from the topic as arguments made for or against Craig’s thesis led us astray, so to speak. This is a natural occurrence. Topics overlap. (I use such discussions to get myself versed on those points I know less about.)
Gotta go. I’ll come right back concerning the issue of submission.
Hans, that makes sense. I’m just slow to find references and short on time. Makes it hard for me to tackle very much.
Have a good one.
Craig–
Since you are a believer and a repentant one at that, it would be superfluous of me to pray for God’s mercy on you. I don’t pray for God to create the world or to continue his providence of it.
So it is completely unnecessary for me to pray to Mary…or Joseph…or my great aunt Nelly in Hoboken…to obtain God’s mercy.
“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”
1 John 1:9
Not only is it superfluous, it is presumptuous. Neither Mary nor the Saints have any “pull” when it comes to changing God’s mind in terms of coming over to our side concerning healing or comforting or saving or purifying. He has only good things for us…and prayer doesn’t change what those things are. Neither Mary nor Augustine nor Aquinas nor Abigail of Ireland have more wisdom or compassion than God. Personally, I prefer to pray that God’s will be done rather than mine (or yours or my kid sister’s or the Blessed Virgin’s) because I trust him a heckuva lot more. I don’t trust myself as far as I can throw me. I trust Mary, but at this point her will will be perfectly aligned with his. She’s not going to try and change things. I might as well pray to him (not that he’s gonna change either).
Prayer is a spiritual exercise designed to increase our faith and bond us to fellow believers. I acknowledge that that could include departed saints (regardless of canonization) but would likely not enhance our communion with them. And even if it did, it would definitely not involve us in their sanctification. There seems little practical reason for the practice.
Jesus got called out for claiming to forgive sins, for only God can do so. Praying to Mary or the saints for mercy acknowledges them as divine and cannot be maintained as biblical. Even pointing to their prayers is wrong. It is irrational that they would pray any such prayers, and they have no influence whatsoever when it comes to mercy. To say that they do makes them divine.
I disagree. We continually pray to God for mercy. Likewise we can pray to the Saints to pray for us on we have the same petition or to pray for us for our spiritual welfare in other ways . Such acts are merciful in themselves though not in the atoning sort of way. If they were a man forgives your financial then he is merciful so obviously mercy as an umbrella term is not exclusive to God.
Craig–
I see where you’re coming from, but we pray to God for mercy both in terms of spiritual welfare AND forgiveness. And yet you do not differentiate these two in your prayers. (Now, I’m sure you can make that clear in your heart as you pray, but these are public prayers, disseminated far and wide.)
Not only that, but how, in heaven’s name, can the Theotokos “grace your mind” or “teach you Christ’s commandments”? How can she “release [you], bound in the bonds of sin” (and how is that NOT concerned with the forgiveness of sins)? How can she “guard you from your foes” or “enlighten your soul” or “heal your passions”? How can she “keep you from temptation” or “deliver you from evil” (yep, it more or less paraphrases the Lord’s Prayer)?
Your former Reformed self would be sorely disappointed with your current Orthodox self (and its seeming inability to be rational concerning the invocation of saints). If you say you’re simply asking the saints to pray for you, then DO THAT!! I don’t see how you can sit there with a straight face and tell me that’s what you’re doing. I don’t buy it for a (fraction of a) second!
I will be praying for mercy. Mercy for YOU, participating in blatantly idolatrous prayer. May the Spirit enlighten your heart as to the error of these devotions (no matter how well intentioned you may be). As my wife is wont to say, “Mary hates how she is being treated more than anyone else.”
I thinknyou can easily answer all of your own questions without resorting to elevating Mary to a demigod. I just dont think you care to. The prayer you are quoting even ends with a clear statement that we worship God.
CK–
Our relationship with God is analogized in many different ways. Christ is our brother, friend, husband, teacher, pastor (shepherd), priest, and father. Some of those roles are collegial, but most actually call for us to follow, to submit. Not only that, but a further role depicted in Scripture is that of Christ as master and of ourselves as bond servants. Yes, as a slave!
The word in the Greek for “handmaiden” in the Magnificat (Mary’s prayer at the Annunciation) is the generic word for ‘slave.’ This, of course, does NOT mean we are nothing but chattel (i.e., property). We are incredibly loved and faithfully cared for.
As a well-known Catholic apologist said on the radio the other day, “If anyone was predestined, it was Mary. She was planned for since before the dawn of time.”
Now, that doesn’t mean that she was coerced, and it doesn’t mean her sacrifice was meaningless. But she was made, so to speak, “for such a time as this.” She and she alone. There was no plan B if she somehow turned down the option presented her.
Maybe you were saying much the same thing. I’ve simply known Catholics to blow the whole thing out of proportion as if God couldn’t have accomplished the atonement without Mary’s cooperation…as if she could have held up the works but chose not to.
Craig–
If you are talking about Marian devotion in general, then yes, it might be fair to say that I just don’t care to accept it. But then again, I’ve been given no compelling reason to accept it.
Did the Apostles do it? Not that we know of. Did the early church engage in it? Not that we’re aware of. So I don’t “care to” accept it based on evidence. With that in mind, I SHOULDN’T care to accept it.
If, however, you’re referring to hyperbolic prayer to Mary, then I would use much stronger language than simply “I don’t care to.” These prayers are self-evidently idolatrous and need no discussion to prove it. It would be kind of like discussing the pluses and minuses of geocentrism.
No, I cannot “answer all of my own questions” when I cannot even begin to fathom how you can rationalize the validity of these prayers.
There are no examples of invocations to the saints until something like the 370’s. No example of prayer to Mary before 350 (the more probable date for the Sub Tuum).
How do you justify practices which are completely unsubstantiated in Scripture or the Apostolic Fathers? I just don’t get it. You don’t care what Jesus and his Apostles passed on to us? There is a great deal of continuity between the fourth or fifth centuries and modern Orthodoxy. But very little of that goes back to the third century. Why does that have no effect on you? Is it because you don’t CARE for it to??
What is the point of the intercession of the saints anyway? I already have a pitcher on the mound who can out-Koufax Koufax, so why should I call to the bullpen for some high-school phenom? Even if the youngster’s fastball tops out at over 100 mph, I’m sticking with the GOAT (with apologies to Kershaw or whomever).
It just seems silly.
The early church does seem to have the notion that the departed pray for us. If they do, I’m very thankful. There’s no evidence that they thought we could communicate with the dead, however. Why do YOU think we can?
I think you pick and choose your traditions. All the early liturgies we have include invocations to the saints. You will argue they are 4th century creations. Yet prayers for the dead are found in the 2nd century. You reject them too let alone 2 Tim 2:18. So even if we had a first century Marian prayer I doubt you would accept it. Again if the Christian world got into arguments over a liturgical calendar I. The 2nd century, ecclesiology and christology, how did they magically accept prayers to the saints without dispute al all? Especially when it appears it is a continuation of a Jewish practice?
Craig–
On what basis to you accuse me of not following the evidence?
1. The liturgical elements in the Didache definitely DO NOT include any invocations to saints.
2. Prayers FOR the dead are irrelevant to our discussion as are acknowledgements that the saints pray for us.
3. There definitely WERE disputes.
4. You have already said that the Jewish evidence came too late to be germane. I’m not sure it would be relevant anyway. Do you have a citation?
Give me an invocation to a saint or to Mary before 300, and I will certainly give it serious consideration. I think YOU’RE the one stuck in your paradigm, unable to consider the lack of evidence for your beliefs.
Is before 300 for prayers to the saints only? Anything after is suspect and not to be believed or relied upon? Why not 200?
What does 2 Timothy 2 have to do with anything? Or was that a misprint?
The lack of evidence stretches till about 350. I didn’t establish the gap, so why are you asking me about 200? It’s not some random period of time.
The last I checked, continuity implies that a practice actually needs to be continuous…from the beginning…and not just “fairly ancient” in general.
What this tells you can just move move the goal posts. You pick 300 because that’s the earliest you know of but at the end of the day it could be 200 or 100. You would just move it because you don’t think it’s biblical.
Well I just found one before 300 lol
Coptic liturgy of basil (not the same as liturgy of saint basil) is from late third century and has a Marian prayer https://books.google.com/books?id=0RanQa-mLTwC&pg=PA67&lpg=PA67&dq=basil+of+egypt+anaphora&source=bl&ots=SpCmwFcZUv&sig=anB6M9W0yziobwG5HkSSdBooGvM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi9_KSaqNrYAhUL3YMKHdLMC0AQ6AEwBHoECAwQAQ#v=onepage&q=basil%20of%20egypt%20anaphora&f=false
CK–
Since you know that I think it’s unbiblical, you already understand my bottom line. Therefore, there’s no “moving” of the “goal posts.” They’re firmly in place. We’re dealing with two different questions.
1. Was there any veneration (or invocation) of Mary and the saints in Scripture? (That’s a resounding ‘no.’)
2. Was there any veneration (or invocation) of Mary and the saints in the very early church? (That’s a ‘probably not.’)
If you show me credible, verifiable citations (orthodox provenance and pinpointed date) from before 300, then I will have to shorten the period that I argue for…or abandon it altogether. But that’s a legitimate response to new evidence.
But in any event, I have no responsibility to abandon my reliance on Scripture. It’s not changing any time soon. There is no new evidence that even CAN be produced. The canon is closed.
All of the major religions have suffered through numerous splits and theological innovations from very early on. Heresy and schism are natural in human institutions. So Roman changes to Apostolic orthodoxy is what we should expect. It should come as little surprise.
The anaphora to the Coptic liturgy of st basil is from the 3rd century and it asks for Mary’s intercession
But in any event, I have no responsibility to abandon my reliance on Scripture. It’s not changing any time soon. There is no new evidence that even CAN be produced. The canon is closed.
Me-fair enough…but I wish you’d be consistent in your methodology. It’s adhoc.
As an example, please show me in Scripture that the CANON you use is closed? If you can’t point to Scripture itself or Church Fathers identifying it before 300, then it must be unbiblical and not relied on.
Remember, you have no responsibility to abandon your reliance on Scripture.
I’m eager to learn what those verses are.
Craig–
Good catch!! (And from Anglican scholars, to boot!)
Here are my problems with it:
1. Provenance is somewhat sketchy (though reasonable) and the date is not particularly precise. We know it was put down on the page sometime between 643 (when Patriarch Benjamin was no longer a refugee and came back to Alexandria) and 662 (when he died).
Jasper and Cuming maintain that it goes back at least 300 years (putting it mid 350’s, approximately)…and that it MAY go back further…to the late third century, perhaps. They think it reasonable that St. Basil himself might have brought it to Alexandria during his journey there in 357 (and that it may have been used back in Cappadocia before that). We have a pretty good number of extant versions showing the anaphora’s progress from this unadorned Coptic text to the later, elaborate liturgies including many, many saints (whereas this one only mentions Mary). The later versions speak of Mary as “immaculate” and “ever-Virgin” and the like.
The later versions say things like “through the prayers of the saints, forgive us our sins.” You assured me that praying the saints for “mercy” DID NOT include the forgiveness of sins, remember? So much for that.
At any rate, at the very best, you have a genuine document dating to about 280.
2. The bigger problem I have is that the “Marian prayer” is not addressed to Mary. We are asking God to remember Mary and her prayers. That’s NOT an invocation of Mary. That’s simply an acknowledgement that Mary prays for us.
Very different animal.
I honestly think you are dicing hairs. First we pray “through the prayers of the saints” all the time as an acknowledgment that God acts through the prayers of Hos people. The fact that we have this third century source adds credibility to the third century dating of the other prayer and also the Marian intercessions in the other liturgies as surely the lituurgy did not originate in Egypt.
Craig–
And I suppose the fathers were “dicing hairs” when they fought over a vowel, the only difference between “homo-ousios” and “homoi-ousios.” (Same substance vs. Similar substance.)
Words mean something. For me, there is a decided difference in acknowledging the prayers of the saints and asking for them. And an even bigger difference between asking for their prayers and praying TO them (through petitions directly addressed to them).
Once again, if you INTEND to merely ask the saints for their prayers then WHY DON’T YOU DO IT????
Hans they are asking the Saints for prayers that’s why you’re splitting hairs does not make any sense
Pray tell, what is the difference between asking the saints for their prayers and praying to them, as you define it in your comment (“through petitions directly addressed to them”)? If I want to ask for their prayers, how else would I do so, except to address them directly?
I suppose you might assume that they can’t hear me. But that issue is no issue at all in an Orthodox context. Am I missing something in your statement? Or is the issue that I’m not saying, “Dear Jesus, please ask Saint so-and-so to pray for me”?
John and Craig–
Let’s say that one of you was a right good baseball player who once played for the Hartford Yard Goats, a minor league team in Connecticut. You never made it to “The Bigs,” but you had enough power to set the single season record for homers, not only for the Goats…but for the whole Eastern League.
After your playing days were over, you got a job in Atlanta, as a personal assistant to Hank Aaron. One day, you received a package, postmarked from Connecticut. Inside was a shiny new baseball. There was also a note, and it read:
“O, brawny slugger of baseballs! O, mighty home-run King! How many throats screamed your praises in unison as you launched rocket after rocket, booming out of the park!! Please autograph the enclosed rawhide.
Should you have…
A. …signed the ball yourself and sent it back post haste?
B. …given it to Mr. Aaron to attach his own “John Hancock” to the spheroid?
***************
Truth be told, the best of us could hardly be said to have hit a bloop single playing tee-ball, compared to what our Lord has accomplished. How ought the same verbiage be expended on us as him?
Shouldn’t the request have been more along the lines of…”Can you please ask the one-and-only Hammerin’ Hank to autograph this for me?”
(John, obviously you cannot ask the saint for his or her prayers without doing so directly. That is not the point. The point is that petitioning is not asking. It should be “Mary, full of grace, pray for me” and not “Mary, full of grace, buy me a Mercedes Benz. My friends all have Porsches; I must make amends!”)
The point is that petitioning is not asking.
Me- you change definition of words and expect everyone to adhere to your personal definition. If you are going to invent new definitions then at least tell us what it is not just what it isn’t. What’s your definition of petition? It’s hard to consider your arguments when it seems we aren’t even speaking the same language.
CK–
I didn’t forget you. It’s an intriguing question. I do think the canon is different, however.
1. We have all the NT books by around 90 AD.
2. We have a mostly complete manuscript of the Pauline epistles (Papyrus 46) from perhaps the late second century (somewhere between 175 and 225).
3. Irenaeus places the 4 Gospels together in about 180.
4. Neither your side nor mine (nor anybody else, for that matter) thinks these books weren’t circulated from very early on. The Catholics, the Orthodox, and 99.9% of Protestants have the exact same 27 books in their NT canons.
I didn’t forget you. It’s an intriguing question. I do think the canon is different, however.
Me-No. It’s really not that different.
1. We have all the NT books by around 90 AD.
Me-this doesn’t tell me how you know the canon is closed.
2. We have a mostly complete manuscript of the Pauline epistles (Papyrus 46) from perhaps the late second century (somewhere between 175 and 225).
Me-this doesn’t tell me how you know the canon is closed.
3. Irenaeus places the 4 Gospels together in about 180.
Me-this doesn’t tell me how you know the canon is closed.
4. Neither your side nor mine (nor anybody else, for that matter) thinks these books weren’t circulated from very early on. The Catholics, the Orthodox, and 99.9% of Protestants have the exact same 27 books in their NT canons.
Me-these books and many others were circulating yet not all were picked. Still doesn’t tell me how you know the canon is closed.
CK–
Sorry if I was somewhat imprecise. My difficulty is that Catholics (and to a lesser extent, the Orthodox) use language strangely when it comes to prayer.
My intention was this:
One “asks” someone who is not in power for a favor (in that they can help you petition the one who is in power)…whereas one directly “petitions” one who actually is in power (for a redress of grievances, for example).
It is a slightly ad hoc definition, but I felt it would be followable, given all the rest that I have written in this thread.
One “asks” someone who is not in power for a favor (in that they can help you petition the one who is in power)…whereas one directly “petitions” one who actually is in power (for a redress of grievances, for example).
Me – Thank you for the explanation.
The saints in heaven are in a more powerful position relative to us. They are closer to God than the most holy person on earth. They are after all in heaven and without sin. Because of their relationship with God their prayers are more powerful than ours (the prayers of a righteous man avails much). We are not the same.
Again this practice is under the knowledge that any prayers answered ultimately comes from God. The saints are not gods.
CK–
Well, I’m certainly glad you understand, but the question is, “Will you change how you pray?”
You say the saints in heaven are more righteous than we, more powerful, closer to God. In order to get our prayers answered, do we need any of those things? Are they more righteous than Christ? More powerful? Closer to God? (More approachable? Wiser? Gentler? More gracious? More compassionate?)
None of those things, you say? Well, then why do we need them?
Does Christ know what we need? Does he withhold any good thing from us? Do we know better than he what we should have, what should happen to us? Do we even want OUR prayers answered if they run counter to his will? (The saints may be closer to HIM, but Christ is not closer to THEM, is he?)
Many a stunningly righteous person has had his or her prayers left unanswered or flat out denied. Many a spiritual profligate or simpleton has been inexplicably blessed beyond his or her wildest dreams in response to prayer. Righteousness is no guarantee of a favorable reply. I cannot ask Billy Graham to pray for me and expect astounding results.
James 5 is discussing confessing our sins to one another, praying together with one another, developing, as it were, a righteous community. It is clearly speaking of here and now…in the land of the living. Elijah is used as an example. Not as a saint in heaven, but as a saint on earth. He prayed believing, and his prayers were heard.
If the “saints are not gods,” as you say, then why on earth do you treat them as if they were? Why all the flowery honorifics? Why do you ask them directly for courage and protection and guidance? Can they deliver these things without God’s help? Are you allergic to giving God the credit?
Hans-Well, I’m certainly glad you understand, but the question is, “Will you change how you pray?”
Me-why? You are the one stuck on form over substance.
Hans-You say the saints in heaven are more righteous than we, more powerful, closer to God. In order to get our prayers answered, do we need any of those things? Are they more righteous than Christ? More powerful? Closer to God? (More approachable? Wiser? Gentler? More gracious? More compassionate?)
None of those things, you say? Well, then why do we need them?
Does Christ know what we need? Does he withhold any good thing from us? Do we know better than he what we should have, what should happen to us? Do we even want OUR prayers answered if they run counter to his will? (The saints may be closer to HIM, but Christ is not closer to THEM, is he?)
Me-just cut through the noise. If what you said above is your foundation then we have no business engaging other Christians in the way you mentioned below. We are members of the Body of Christ you just think the dead are not part of that body.
Hans-Many a stunningly righteous person has had his or her prayers left unanswered or flat out denied. Many a spiritual profligate or simpleton has been inexplicably blessed beyond his or her wildest dreams in response to prayer. Righteousness is no guarantee of a favorable reply. I cannot ask Billy Graham to pray for me and expect astounding results.
Me-I never said or implied anything you just mentioned above. Scripture says the prayer of a righteous person is very powerful (James 5:16). Full stop. We do what Scripture asks us to do. We ask for His will to be done, not our will. When we pray or ask a saint pray for us it is also understood that God will give us what is best for us whether we understand it or not.
Hans-James 5 is discussing confessing our sins to one another, praying together with one another, developing, as it were, a righteous community.
Me-that is the communion of saints. Saints that are in heaven are part of Christ’s body and we can’t say we don’t need them. We all work together and for each other.
Hans-It is clearly speaking of here and now…in the land of the living. Elijah is used as an example. Not as a saint in heaven, but as a saint on earth. He prayed believing, and his prayers were heard.
Me-He is the God of the living not just of those living on land. That same Elijah who was dead appeared to Jesus and spoke with Him. So it looks like even Jesus petitioned the dead. Maybe he was setting an example. Let’s take your approach and ask some very important questions. Is Elijah closer to the Father than Jesus? Why didn’t Jesus go directly to the Father? Jesus must have been worshiping Elijah and Moses!!!
Hans-If the “saints are not gods,” as you say, then why on earth do you treat them as if they were? Why all the flowery honorifics?
Me-This has already been answered. You may not like the answer but that’s on you.
Hans-Why do you ask them directly for courage and protection and guidance?
Can they deliver these things without God’s help?
Me-no one can deliver these things without God’s help just like the guardian angels.
Hans-Are you allergic to giving God the credit?
Me-nope. All glory belongs to Him
CK–
“You’re stuck on form over substance” says the adherent of a highly ritualistic religion. If form doesn’t have a substance and a significance of its own, you’re a member of the wrong faith.
Nowhere did I say the departed faithful are not part of the body of Christ. No Protestant would say that.
We don’t need them to answer our prayers. We don’t need them to influence God by means of their closeness.
Yes, Elijah appeared at the Transfiguration. Why didn’t James speak to that if what you believe is true?
Jesus merely conversed with Elijah and Moses (and made zero requests of them). He went directly to the Father whenever he prayed.
Point me to your answer on honorifics. I certainly don’t remember one.
Over and over again you admit that your rhetoric in prayer doesn’t match that which is in your heart.
Is that smart?
Hans-Nowhere did I say the departed faithful are not part of the body of Christ. No Protestant would say that.
Me-Good we agree. So what does Scripture tell us about the members of the body of Christ:
1 cor 12:21 The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” 22 On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23 and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, 24 which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, 25 that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. 26 If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.
The verse tells us we all all still connected as members of the body of Christ. Christians in heaven and on earth. A righteous community. As members we are to care for one another, if one member suffers all suffer and if one member is honored, all rejoice.
Now the saints in heaven don’t need our prayers but since they are members of the body of Christ we should ask for their prayers if we want to use all the tools God gave us. Is it required, no.
Hans-We don’t need them to answer our prayers. We don’t need them to influence God by means of their closeness.
Me-no more than I need you to actually pray for me if I ask you too.
Hans-Jesus merely conversed with Elijah and Moses (and made zero requests of them). He went directly to the Father whenever he prayed.
Me-actually neither one of us know what was said or if requests were made. I’m sure he just wanted to ask them how things were going and the weather.
Hans-Point me to your answer on honorifics. I certainly don’t remember one.
me-Jan 8th “The flowering language that’s added to the prayers of the saints and Mary is to show our love, honor and acknowledge their particular sufferings and what they overcame among other things.”
Hans-Over and over again you admit that your rhetoric in prayer doesn’t match that which is in your heart.
Me-What???
CK–
1. So go ahead and ask them to pray for you already. But quit praying TO them!
2. So their earthly sufferings and accomplishments endow them with godlike honor? Incredible! Preposterous! (Why not just admit your idolatry?)?
3. Yes, CK, over and over again your explanations have no correspondence with your actual language in prayer. Evidently, you don’t even realize what you’re saying!
CK–
Fine. I have a 27-book NT canon with the exact same books you have, based on their prevalent and widespread use in church history, their Apostolic provenance, and their coherence together,among other reasons.
If other, similar books show up all of a sudden, I may need to evaluate them. If it makes you happy, I’ll do that. (Ain’t gonna happen, but I want you happy!)
At the end if the day, all that I know is that I have zero need for Rome to help out.
And for what it’s worth, I have the exact same OT canon as St. Athanasius, protector of the faith par excellence in the Early Church!
I’m in very good company, don’t you think?
(Oh, and St. Jerome agrees with me, too!)
Very good company, indeed….
Good thing we can pick and choose what books of the bible we like and what fathers we like, and flush the rest down the toilet 😉
We both do the exact same thing, Craig. You just do it by proxy.
With all due respect, in Orthodoxy, the only things that remain without debate is where that has been an ancient consensus. You cannot appeal to consensus because most of your opinions are minority ones if not later innovations.
Besides, the discrepancy between us (in terms of OT books) doesn’t make one iota of difference in dogma. “Bel and the Dragon” doesn’t exactly shake the theological world.
Well, that’s your opinion. It’s not mine. I follow the evidence, rather than assertions as to consensuses which were clearly NOT there.
St. Jerome and St. Athanasius are not some obscure fathers no one much has heard of. These are DOCTORS of the church. What kind of “consensus” do you have that doesn’t include two of the most prominent voices?
When it comes to Marian devotion in the early post-Apostolic church, not only do you not have any evidence for a consensus, you don’t have evidence for any PRACTICE. They speak of Mary, too. Just not in exalted tones. Their rather muted descriptions are completely uncharacteristic of Orthodoxy or Catholicism.
Later consensuses, which can coalesce around innovations, are meaningless…and you know it. You’re not being honest with yourself or me.
I will have a article that will touch on this but due to personal things I don’t know how delayed it will be
As to Onesiphorus, whom you addressed above (although you listed the verse incorrectly), I have acknowledged over and over again that there is some evidence of prayers FOR the dead in the early church. Also, there is evidence that they acknowledged that the departed saints prayed for the living here on earth. There is just no evidence that they thought they could communicate with the departed either to ask them for prayer or to petition them for favors.
Protestants of certain stripes routinely pray FOR the dead. Here are a couple of prayers from the Anglican rite of burial (from the Book of Common Prayer):
“O God, whose mercies cannot be numbered: Accept our
prayers on behalf of your servant N., and grant him an
entrance into the land of light and joy, in the fellowship of
your saints; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and
reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for
ever. Amen.”
“Rest eternal grant to him, O Lord; And let light perpetual shine upon him. May his soul, and the souls of all the departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen.”
Hans – I don’t want to toss too many comments because it’s distracting, I just have a question about this:
You – As to Onesiphorus, whom you addressed above (although you listed the verse incorrectly), I have acknowledged over and over again that there is some evidence of prayers FOR the dead in the early church. Also, there is evidence that they acknowledged that the departed saints prayed for the living here on earth. There is just no evidence that they thought they could communicate with the departed either to ask them for prayer or to petition them for favors.
Me — Earlier in this exchange the verse about the elders presenting the prayers of the faithful was cited. My question is, how could they know what the faithful are praying for unless they can hear the prayers, AND why would they be presenting the prayers to the Throne of God if the faithful are praying entirely straight to God? Why the intercession?
I look forward to the article. I pray you are doing OK. I believe you have mentioned personal health concerns in the past. May God bless you, in any case.
Yes those concerns have dissipated with decreased writing but this time it has to do with a change of Address
A nostalgic move back to your parents’ basement? Or a visionary move forward to a nicer subdivision?
lol, i am married and i haven’t lived at home since i was 22! i got a promotion so i need to move to a new town.
Congratulations! Yes, I knew you were married and all. Figured it was either a baby on the way…or a promotion.
Good for you!
I’m moving from a safe town to a “dangerous” town on paper, so I will need prayer.
Then you shall have it. Towns which are dangerous on paper may not be so during daylight hours…or in the sections you personally abide or frequent. May God go with you!
Can you explain to me why would any Christian ever want to serve a departed human? What exactly are you serving them for? Are you serving them something like idols needed to be served meat in the temple? Or are you doing their wills?
A “funeral service” serves the one having a funeral, doesn’t it?
It was not mentioned that James White is fluent in Koine Greek. I do not think this argument made any in-way against his reasoning in that debate. You did not provide an example of dulia used in any context that negate’s White’s argument.
He’s not fluent. He only reads the Greek with an interlinnear, and almost always, with an english translation next to it. It’s a sham. Further, I did use dulia in a context that completely destroys White’s argument:
We also see dulia pertaining to the service of other Christians, and not acts of worship (i.e. Phil 2:22, see also Gal 5:13 1 Tim 6:2). This is not true for a single usage of the term latria in the Scriptures, which mitigates against James White’s conflation of the terms.
Bondservants, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ…with goodwill doing service (dulia), as to the Lord, and not to men (Eph 6:5, 7).
I mean, Eph 6 literally states we can serve men as if they were the Lord Himself. This would be idolatrous if Dulia literally meant worship! White’s argument fails on Scriptural grounds.
May God bless you with your inquiries into these matters.