Asking the saints to pray for us

Just a question....  how does the bible define saint or saints?

MJ. Smith said:

Thank you Veli - very good example of how many of us cannot imagine others seeing the world in a manner unlike our own.

Very true. For example, one of the Greek Patristics used an analogy of a master asking a slave in a slave market if he will follow for how Christ chose us to follow Him. It’s startling, even off-putting, from a 21st century perspective. But in a society that accepted it as normal, it was an analogy they could understand.

I thought of setting up an experiment to help us answer the question of when it is optimal to pray to the saints. Here it is…

Let’s say I have X (say, 10) minutes to pray. I can spend part of the 10 minutes praying to God and the remaining time praying to the saints (Option A) or I can spend minutes the whole 10 minutes praying to God (Option . Under what conditions will praying to the saints in addition to God (Option A) be better than praying to God alone (Option ?

1Cor10:31 said:

. Another way of asking the same question as above: Under what conditions will Option A be more God-glorifying than Option B?

It never has to be option A or B. It can be both. Have you ever asked for someone to pray for you while you’re also praying about something yourself? Have you ever brought up a prayer request at church? Is there anyone in your life that seems to have a really good “connection” to God? For instance, you have a job interview coming up, so you say to yourself, “I’ve got to have Grandma praying for me because her prayers really seem to get answered!” This is the same principle. With the saints, who are alive and not dead, you’re asking intercession from someone who is much closer to the throne of God than anyone else on earth. If you want to merely say, “Forget it. I can pray to God directly,” that’s fine. But in that case, you should never ask others here on earth to intercede for you either.

So far there is not one single verse from Scripture saying this is possible-  this is what happens when man-made religion interferes with God's work- paganism in the Church.

xnman said:

Just a question....  how does the bible define saint or saints?

If you inspect your Bible's inspired glossary (the Text), being a saint can be pre- or post-Jesus.  Minimum requirement appears to be 'righteousness' (>YHWH/Theos).

And a body is required at some point (Mat 27:52).  Not clear is whether correct doctrine is needed (eg a Pauline follower or those of his opponents).

Whyndell Grizzard said:

So far there is not one single verse from Scripture saying this is possible-  this is what happens when man-made religion interferes with God's work- paganism in the Church.

I find the last part of your statement highly uncharitable. However, there was a time when I probably thought the same thing, so I am not offended.

Keep in mind that the NT church was up and running for centuries before there was agreement on exactly what constituted Scripture. St. Paul refers to passing on traditions (παράδοσις) in 1 Cor 11.2; 2 Thess 2.15; and 3.6. There was no NT in place or even Gospels written yet when he wrote his letters. When references are made to Scripture in the New Testament, they are referring to Old Testament writings (with the one possible exception in 2 Pet 3.16). But at the time of the NT, the Jews couldn't even agree as to what was Scripture and what was not. Christians had their Old Testament nailed down well before the Jews did finally by the Middle Ages. No one suggested that every practice of the church even had to have biblical prooftext for the first 1,500 years of the NT church. 

MJ. Smith said:

I would argue that "exactly" has never quite been achieved, that a general accepted canon including lips-only service to canonicity of some books as all that has ever been achieved. As I have doubts about all Catholic-only councils being ecumenical councils, I would argue that there has never been a universal official canon. 

I don’t disagree. What we have are “generally agreed upon books” within each of the three branches of Christianity, with some variation within each group. And of course, “canon” means something different between West and East anyway. In the Eastern Churches, there are books to be read in the churches and books to be read at home. Revelation falls into the latter category and is not part of any of the set lectionaries. This is primarily because in the East, Revelation was very late to be accepted (7th or 8th century), and the lectionaries had already been set. And, of course, in the East no “official” list was ever made. There are just the ones generally agreed on. 

R. Mansfield said:

1Cor10:31">. Another way of asking the same question as above: Under what conditions will Option A be more God-glorifying than Option B?

It never has to be option A or B. It can be both. Have you ever asked for someone to pray for you while you’re also praying about something yourself? Have you ever brought up a prayer request at church? Is there anyone in your life that seems to have a really good “connection” to God? For instance, you have a job interview coming up, so you say to yourself, “I’ve got to have Grandma praying for me because her prayers really seem to get answered!” This is the same principle. With the saints, who are alive and not dead, you’re asking intercession from someone who is much closer to the throne of God than anyone else on earth. If you want to merely say, “Forget it. I can pray to God directly,” that’s fine. But in that case, you should never ask others here on earth to intercede for you either.

I agree that it is not always a binary choice. I do ask people in my small group and church to pray for issues that matter to me. Clearly, the number of people that I ask to pray for me are just a few, so time is not a constraint.

But if you are going to pray to the saints, where is the limit? In theory, I could repeat my prayer request to all the saints. And that it time consuming, isn't it?

[I totally understand if you don't want to pursue this further because it might devolve into theological debate]

1Cor10:31 said:

Combining both, we can write: Output = Capacity multiplied by Utilization.

Speaking generally, because exceptions can be found, this is an excellent example of a difference between Western and Eastern Christianity. Western Christianity loves logic and formulas. Eastern Christianity says God is a mystery and one's faith and practice cannot be reduced to formulas. We know that our meager prayers have been joined to the prayers of the saints. Thus, we often end prayer with "Through the prayers of our Holy Fathers, Lord Jesus Christ, our God, have mercy on us and save us."

MJ. Smith said:

1Cor10:31">Combining both, we can write: Output = Capacity multiplied by Utilization

You have no idea how completely foreign this is to my thought patterns. But my son has pointed me to some theologicans who suggest God=math with some solid reasoning behind it. When I have time, I'll have to explore the concept of the mathematizing of Christian theology/practice.

There are 3 ways to come to a Mathematical God.

1. All truths emanate from God. Researchers only discover truths set by God. Thus, Einstein only discovered the formula E=m*c-square, which was set by God when He created the heavens and the earth. Thus, every mathematical relation we have in pure science is from God and hence He is a mathematical God.

2.   Let's move from pure science to social science. Let's say we want to explain the salary earned by individuals. It could depend on many factors (both nature and nurture). Thus, we could write:

Salary = a*IQ (one of the "nature" factors) + b*Years of Education (one of the "nurture" factors) + ......+ Random piece.

God has perfect knowledge, which implies that He not only knows the various factors (Years of Education, IQ etc.), but He also knows how sensitive Salary is to these various factors ("a", "b", etc.). [As researchers, we only try to come with the various factors (IQ, Years of education etc.) but we will never have the full list; we don't know the true sensitivities ("a", "b" etc.), we only estimate them. Heck, we don't know the model is linear.]

God also perfect foreknowledge. For example, if I toss a coin to decide which desert - cake or ice cream - to eat, God knows that already because He knows which way the coin will flip. Extrapolating to the equation above, perfect foreknowledge implies, He knows the "Random piece" too.

That means, He knows everything and everything is in the form of equations. 

3. Intuitively, the more more knowledge you have, the more you can write everything in the form of equations. And God having perfect knowledge and perfect foreknowledge can put down everything in the form of equations.

MJ. Smith said:

Mind you, that is off the top of my head; I am certain I would refine the list and the wording if it were an official statement of belief.

I disagree, but am happy to chat on this outside of this forum (if you're interested). 

MJ. Smith said:

1Cor10:31">, Einstein only discovered the formula E=m*c-square, which was set by God when He created the heavens and the earth

I doubt very much that Einstein's law will hold over time; new discoveries will modify, refine, or replace it.

No scientist has EVER created and will NEVER EVER  create truths. All truths (scientific, moral,....) are set by God. We only discover patheays to truths, half truths, and full truths.

If E=m*c-square is the truth set by God, then it will hold for eternity. 

If E=m*c-square is NOT the truth set by God, then it will not hold.

Bottom line: we cannot tell whether it will hold or not because this scientific truth is not found in the Bible.

I would love to know of resources that describe God and His decisions in mathematical language.

MJ. Smith said:

Huh? Why does one have to ask one by one? I usually end my prayers with a trinitarian formula ...do I need to repeat my prayer for each person of the Trinity? Or shall I drive you completely nuts by pointing out that when I walk past an array of prayer candles, I ask God to take care of all the concerns signified? In actual fact, I tend to ask prayers from a single saint or saints collectively,

This post reminded of the scene in the movie Bruce Almighty where he converts all the incoming prayers to emails, and then clicks on "answer all".

I stumbled upon and read this entire thread with interest. Having been raised catholic and then converted over to "Biblical Christianity" as a young man, I was wondering how it would conclude. Very strange for it to end with a discussion of math.

I wish I had an elaborate response which could cite many resources ... but I will just go from memory here. The only real resources you need are the history books. I have always preferred Phil Schaff's church history, very readable.

Early Christianity was monotheistic, like the Judaism it sprang out of. The Roman culture was not. The Romans had many gods. The concept of praying to "patron saints" was originally the Roman practice of praying to many gods, ancestors, and "Patron gods".

The movie Gladiator had a scene in it in which Russel Crowe who played Maximux the general prays to the gods and to his (departed) family.

Here is a link to the clip: https://youtu.be/tF4OPOsjbpc

My intent is not to debate the accuracy of the scene, but it came to mind while I was reading this thread.

To my knowledge, history does not detail in precise easy to follow steps, how early "Apostolic Christianity" evolved into what we see today in catholic and orthodox traditions. The big picture showing how it happened is all there in the history books.

From the time of Constantine onward, there was a merging of Christianity, Roman government, and the former pagan ideas of Rome. We all know this and accept it when we celebrate holidays (holy days) like Christmas and Easter.

When catholic and orthodox people argue that their traditions are rooted in history and go back to the beginning, this is the truth. But this in my mind does not resolve the issues, it merely places an earlier date on when a practice or belief began.

When prayer to saints comes up as a question, the question is always "where is that in the Bible?" The answer is always the same. It is not in there. The New Testament shows Jesus teaching on prayer only to "Our Father in Heaven". The Apostles wrote "pray for us". They never wrote "pray to us".

The Bible states clearly that there is "one mediator" (1Ti 2:5) and that God alone is able to adequately intercede for us. We (humans) do not know how to properly intercede due to our human weakness, lack of knowledge, and inability to express in words (Romans 8:26).

The saints, whether alive or in the intermediate state are equally human. The belief that certain patron saints have special strengths or powers that the rest of us lack comes directly from the pagan beliefs that some humans became gods or demigods upon death. To believe that one needs a departed saint as a mediator is to question the sufficiency of the finished work of Christ.

Jesus did all he could for us, but still needs a little help from his mother? Not in scripture.

In scripture, Jesus promises that we do not need any mediator. After he completes his work, the disciples would receive anything they ask directly from the Father. (John 16:23-27)

Don Awalt said:

Welcome to the forums John

Thank you Don. However I am not new to the forum. I have been inactive for a long time. Last week I had almost 400 posts, but somehow they disappeared and now it says 3.

Given that this thread openly violates the rules, as well as attacks and misrepresents the beliefs of a religion, why hasn’t it been deleted yet?

MJ. Smith said:

Have you reported the abuse? see under More on the upper right of the post. If it hasn't been reported its unlikely to be blocked; if it is reported, FL may delete it, freeze it, and/or contact the offending individual(s) privately.

Yes, I reported it.