Do the Saints In Glory Intercede For Us?

[Ian Gentles]

I was wondering, do those we love, who have gone on before us to glory, kinda put a word in for us with the Lord? We are told we are encompassed by a great cloud of witnesses! This seems to show a great interest in Glory of what is happening down here!
I maybe way wrong in all this, but it would be nice if i wasn't!

Also, another question in same area of thought, what does it mean that, Christ intercedes for us?

[Sheya Stephens]

I have never heard of this from my pastors, but I do know that my mother in law, who is Catholic, believes firmly in this. My father in law passed away almost 2 years ago. She firmly believes that he is her intercessor for her and Jesus. It will be interesting to see what everyone else thinks.

[Wilson L. Deaton]

Not an answer, but a related experience...

About a month ago, I was at the death bed of a devout Roman Catholic. Her priest was also there. He prayed for her then said something like, "_____, we have prayed for you but now we ask you to do something for us. When you pass it will be your turn to intercede for us. Will you promise to remember us and intercede for us?"

Wilson

[David Parker]

My wife was raised Catholic and many of her family are very devout Catholics. When this subject came up in the past I determined to do some research and was surprised at the strength of their doctrine.

I am not yet convinced, but they make a good argument.

The Intercession of the Saints (http://www.catholic.com/library/Intercession_of_the_Saints.asp)

That site is "one of the nation’s largest lay-run apostolates of Catholic apologetics and evangelization" with excellent moderated forums. It is a great source of information on all things Catholic.

[Barbara Moulton]

My wife was raised Catholic and many of her family are very devout Catholics. When this subject came up in the past I determined to do some research and was surprised at the strength of their doctrine.

I am not yet convinced, but they make a good argument.

The Intercession of the Saints (http://www.catholic.com/library/Intercession_of_the_Saints.asp)

That site is "one of the nation’s largest lay-run apostolates of Catholic apologetics and evangelization" with excellent moderated forums. It is a great source of information on all things Catholic.

Even C.S.Lewis speculated that, if we ask people to pray for us while they are alive, why shouldn't we ask them after they have died?

It's not something I have incorporated into my prayer life but it made me look at it in a different way.

[Gina Stevenson]

Even C.S.Lewis speculated that, if we ask people to pray for us while they are alive, why shouldn't we ask them after they have died?

It's not something I have incorporated into my prayer life but it made me look at it in a different way.

Even if not praying at this moment, God not being bound by our timeline, prayers by those who've gone on before can effectively work today for us, perhaps, from God's perspective, no? ;)

[Roland Hearn]

The whole construct is based on the concept that I am not good enough to get God's attention. It requires that those of gone on before care more about my needs then God does - is that really a concept we want to work through.

In this life we are on a shared journey. People pray together not to reach a critical mass in prayer that will swing God's attention but as part of the shared journey of faith.

[BobHunt]

Yet, if we can pray here and God answers, why couldnt someone pray in Heaven after they have arrived, and God would answer? Will we stop praying when we arrive in Heaven?

[Eric Frey]

The whole construct is based on the concept that I am not good enough to get God's attention. It requires that those of gone on before care more about my needs then God does - is that really a concept we want to work through.

Unless I am misunderstanding, this is lunacy. Because I ask others to pray for me, then I am asserting that I am not good enough to get God's attention on my own? Could you please clarify? Could it be that I am asking others to help me carry my burden? Or would that be asserting that God is not sufficient to carry my burden?

[Eric Frey]

If the saints can intercede for us, then can we ask them to intercede for us?

[Randy Wise]

I would state no, but I wonder how do those who believe in such things explain how the saints can deal with some many prayers and how do they even hear our prayers? They are not God and if God has to carry the message to them than I guess He already has heard the prayer. I wonder if God would be angry for the people praying to saints for not trusting enough to come to Him?

Randy

[Bob Carabbio]

Nope - that's just another Catholic superstition. There's no reason to believe that the "dearly departed" are necessarily even are aware of the doings on earth, or have any interest in it whatsoever.

Kind of in the same bucket as "Purgatorial Sanctification", and the Catholic "Mary Monster" who gains stature every month.

It's basically born from a fear that God really ISN'T who HE says He is, and needs our help.

The question is that -

IF Jesus understands us perfectly, and loves us, and KNOWS what's in our best interests, and FATHER loves us and has sent the Holy Spirit to be WITH us and in us -

Just what do we think uncle Phil, who passed on to glory last month, can add to THAT package???

i.e. Father God and His Son who died for us don't have the wisdom to "do right" in our situation, and are too ignorant to understand us - so hopefully uncle Phil can straighten 'em out???

Please!!

[Roland Hearn]

Unless I am misunderstanding, this is lunacy. Because I ask others to pray for me, then I am asserting that I am not good enough to get God's attention on my own? Could you please clarify? Could it be that I am asking others to help me carry my burden? Or would that be asserting that God is not sufficient to carry my burden?


Eric - let's not go down the name calling road. It isn't lunacy it is common sense. To help clarify I said in my earlier post that shared prayer here has to do with shared faith journey it is about relationship. Once you start talking about the equation that puts the number of people together with the answer to prayer you have to start calculating how many people do you need praying in order to get an answer to prayer. Do you ask people to pray for you because you think that the more people you have praying the more likely God is to answer? If you do then you have a problem in your understanding of the relationship we have with God.

The more people we have praying the more opportunity we have to share in one another's lives and to experience grace and faith together. It has absolutely nothing at all to do with God being more willing to answer prayer if there are more people praying. Given that the opportunity for ongoing relationship with people in eternity does not exist, and it is debatable the extent to which people in glory are even aware of what is going on here (but that is another issue), the idea of people in eternity praying for us is at complete odds with the ideas of grace and faith. The further you go down that road the less of a gracious God you have.

[Charlotte Mercer]

Eric - let's not go down the name calling road. It isn't lunacy it is common sense. To help clarify I said in my earlier post that shared prayer here has to do with shared faith journey it is about relationship. Once you start talking about the equation that puts the number of people together with the answer to prayer you have to start calculating how many people do you need praying in order to get an answer to prayer. Do you ask people to pray for you because you think that the more people you have praying the more likely God is to answer? If you do then you have a problem in your understanding of the relationship we have with God.

The more people we have praying the more opportunity we have to share in one another's lives and to experience grace and faith together. It has absolutely nothing at all to do with God being more willing to answer prayer if there are more people praying. Given that the opportunity for ongoing relationship with people in eternity does not exist, and it is debatable the extent to which people in glory are even aware of what is going on here (but that is another issue), the idea of people in eternity praying for us is at complete odds with the ideas of grace and faith. The further you go down that road the less of a gracious God you have.

Just to clarify so that I can understand this a bit better: you say that we pray for each other and ask others to pray for us so that we can grow closer to each other and so that we can, together, grow closer to Christ and become more like Him (or at least that those reasons for praying for each other make the most sense with the idea of a loving God).

So, what I'm understanding you to say is that the reason we shouldn't need to ask the "saints in glory" to pray for us is that until we meet them there, we cannot really improve our relationships with them, and that once they are in glory - that is, in the physical presence of God Himself - they can't really get closer to God. So, ruling out trying to improve our relationships with them or trying to let them join us in our own journeys toward Christ, the only reason that seems to be left in asking them to pray for us is in the hope that, since they are already with God in heaven, He may be more likely to listen to them.

Is that a good understanding of your beliefs?

[David Parker]

All I know is that my wife's Catholic family defends praying to Mary (they actually deny it is prayer) and the saints by saying it is the same thing as me asking you to pray for me.

We freely ask each other to pray for us, though we need no mediator between God and man and we know our prayers are heard by God. We still ask others to pray for us.

They see Mary and the saints as part of that 'great cloud of witnesses' and believe they can hear us and pray for us. I personally can't see that there is any harm unless one is obsessive about it and neglects direct prayer to God.

Praying to the Saints (http://www.catholic.com/library/Praying_to_the_Saints.asp)

[Gina Stevenson]

Unless I am misunderstanding, this is lunacy. Because I ask others to pray for me, then I am asserting that I am not good enough to get God's attention on my own? Could you please clarify? Could it be that I am asking others to help me carry my burden? Or would that be asserting that God is not sufficient to carry my burden?

Wait a minute ... this almost sounds a wee bit "lone-ranger-ish" ... as if one should be "good enough" to pray for themselves without bothering to involve others at all [re "not good enough to get God's attention on my own"?]

Even if not praying at this moment, God not being bound by our timeline, prayers by those who've gone on before can effectively work today for us, perhaps, from God's perspective, no? ;)

Just realized that --- in case this was not clear --- those prayers to which I referred from those who've gone on before are ones prayed prior to their departure, not while in heaven.

[Randy Wise]

All I know is that my wife's Catholic family defends praying to Mary (they actually deny it is prayer) and the saints by saying it is the same thing as me asking you to pray for me.

We freely ask each other to pray for us, though we need no mediator between God and man and we know our prayers are heard by God. We still ask others to pray for us.

They see Mary and the saints as part of that 'great cloud of witnesses' and believe they can hear us and pray for us. I personally can't see that there is any harm unless one is obsessive about it and neglects direct prayer to God.

Praying to the Saints (http://www.catholic.com/library/Praying_to_the_Saints.asp)
Mary must be wore out:)

Randy

[Glenda Harvey]

All I know is that my wife's Catholic family defends praying to Mary (they actually deny it is prayer) and the saints by saying it is the same thing as me asking you to pray for me.

We freely ask each other to pray for us, though we need no mediator between God and man and we know our prayers are heard by God. We still ask others to pray for us.

They see Mary and the saints as part of that 'great cloud of witnesses' and believe they can hear us and pray for us. I personally can't see that there is any harm unless one is obsessive about it and neglects direct prayer to God.

Praying to the Saints (http://www.catholic.com/library/Praying_to_the_Saints.asp)


I agree. I am not sure if those in heaven can hear us or not but if the Catholic stance is that they can hear us and pray for us there is no harm in asking for prayer from the saints as long as it does not replace personal, direct prayer to God. I think we need to be less critical of this aspect of the Catholic faith. I myself would not pray to saints or those who have gone to heaven ahead of me but in the last few years I have had a better understanding of Christians who do.

[Roland Hearn]

Just to clarify so that I can understand this a bit better: you say that we pray for each other and ask others to pray for us so that we can grow closer to each other and so that we can, together, grow closer to Christ and become more like Him (or at least that those reasons for praying for each other make the most sense with the idea of a loving God).

So, what I'm understanding you to say is that the reason we shouldn't need to ask the "saints in glory" to pray for us is that until we meet them there, we cannot really improve our relationships with them, and that once they are in glory - that is, in the physical presence of God Himself - they can't really get closer to God. So, ruling out trying to improve our relationships with them or trying to let them join us in our own journeys toward Christ, the only reason that seems to be left in asking them to pray for us is in the hope that, since they are already with God in heaven, He may be more likely to listen to them.

Is that a good understanding of your beliefs?

That is pretty close Charlotte. We are praying together because we are living together and because we are loving together. Any construct of prayer that relies upon volume of prayer, or quality of prayer or number of prayers in order to get the answer becomes formulaic. It misses the whole point of prayer. There are many people that think if we can just get the formula right we can get the answers we want. Even though they may not articulate it as such the end result is that we see prayers as putting pressure on God to give us the results we would like. It is an idea of prayer that lends itself to misunderstandings of grace and God. Part of the process of prayer is without a doubt about the idea of developing relationship with God, it is also about developing relationship with others.

[Gina Stevenson]

That is pretty close Charlotte. We are praying together because we are living together and because we are loving together. Any construct of prayer that relies upon volume of prayer, or quality of prayer or number of prayers in order to get the answer becomes formulaic. It misses the whole point of prayer. There are many people that think if we can just get the formula right we can get the answers we want. Even though they may not articulate it as such the end result is that we see prayers as putting pressure on God to give us the results we would like. It is an idea of prayer that lends itself to misunderstandings of grace and God. Part of the process of prayer is without a doubt about the idea of developing relationship with God, it is also about developing relationship with others.

This high-lighted part justed reminded me of something I'd not tho't of in a long, long time. There was one relative who said something to me after Danny died [one of those, "Did they really say that?" sort of thing several said/say after a death], like: "Oh, if only he could've gotten to a Benny Hinn crusade!" Oh, my! Do you mean my husband would not have had to die, had he gotten to one!? [would hope that God wouldn't be limited enough to need "one person in particular" to get near someone to determine whether they lived or died] Definitely, this was a "formulaic" idea they had ......................

[Eric Frey]

Roland,

If I offended, I apologize. It was not my intent. I'll add more when I have more time to reflect.

Peace brother.

[Hans Deventer]

Because I ask others to pray for me, then I am asserting that I am not good enough to get God's attention on my own? Could you please clarify?

In the article David referred us to, it says: "In particular, we should ask the intercession of those Christians in heaven, who have already had their sanctification completed, for '[t]he prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects' (Jas. 5:16)."

I think that's the very concept Roland is referring to. The line of thinking is: "they are more holy than we, hence, their prayers are more effective." That I would disagree with too.

Moreover, James' very point was that "Elijah was a man just like us". It was an encouragement for us to pray, not to have more righteous people pray for us!

I don't see in the Bible anything that would indicate we would need to ask the people who died to pray for us. In fact, Hebrews argues at length that Jesus' sacrifice as high priest is unique and give us direct access to God Himself.

14 Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. 15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin. 16 Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.

There is great value in having people pray for us, but the Bible nowhere suggests we should include the departed in that company.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

NazNet never ceases to surprise me. When I first saw this thread I thought, "That one will go nowhere!" Now I note that it has over 20 replies.

Speaking for myself, I welcome prayers on my behalf from any believer, but I'm glad the Scriptures specifically say that Jesus is at the right hand of God interceding on my behalf.

[Jamie Wayne]

I would approach this issue by asking what the harm could possibly be if someone were to honestly ask a saint, in heaven, to intercede on their behalf?

If there's no harm done asking the living on earth to intercede, it seems to me that there would be no harm done asking the living "in" heaven to intercede.

Either way, God is listening to us when we ask someone else to pray for us - and, either way, if what we are praying for is His will, then whether we're asking for earthly or heavenly intercession, won't His will be done?

I have absolutely no problem with faithful Christians "praying" that someone "in" heaven will intercede for us. Roland talks about relationship, and I appreciate that, but isn't it good to think that there is still relationship between those on earth and those in heaven? If given the freedom to do so, do we think that someone like Brad would be on his knees praying for us even "in" heaven? ...and do we not have any sort of relationship with Brad just because he's "in" heaven? In fact, doesn't asking someone "in" heaven to pray for us, if they are able to hear us, let them know that we're still thinking about them, and that we're hoping that they're still thinking about us? Isn't there meaning in that? Even if they aren't "listening", is it consistent with God's character to think that He will honour our intention?

[Jamie Wayne]

The more people we have praying the more opportunity we have to share in one another's lives and to experience grace and faith together.

Can we not include those "in" heaven in the sharing of our lives, and can they not, in return, share the grace and faith that they have with us?

I sincerely hope that the answer to this question is a resounding YES.

[Hans Deventer]

If given the freedom to do so, do we think that someone like Brad would be on his knees praying for us even "in" heaven?

Is there a Scripture that suggest that people in heaven are praying to God?

...and do we not have any sort of relationship with Brad just because he's "in" heaven?

Well, I don't, for a relationship is a two way thing. All I have are the memories. I do believe that the relationship will be restored though. So besides the memories, there is also hope.

In fact, doesn't asking someone "in" heaven to pray for us, if they are able to hear us, let them know that we're still thinking about them

Why would I want people in heaven to know I'm still thinking about them? They lack nothing! God is their all. That's what heaven is.

and that we're hoping that they're still thinking about us?

I'm not hoping for that. My father passed away, my brother passed away, but I'm not hoping either is thinking of me now. Why would I? Would that help me in any way? God is thinking about me, loving me, there are people on earth thinking about, also loving me, as amazing as it sounds. What do I need the departed for? They can't communicate with me.

Isn't there meaning in that?

Maybe, but I don't see it.

Even if they aren't "listening", is it consistent with God's character to think that He will honour our intention?

Yesl, in general, and within limits, I think God will honour our intentions, as misguided as our actions may be.

[Jamie Wayne]

Is there a Scripture that suggest that people in heaven are praying to God?

Does there have to be?

Is there a Scripture that clearly states that they aren't or couldn't be?


Well, I don't, for a relationship is a two way thing. All I have are the memories. I do believe that the relationship will be restored though. So besides the memories, there is also hope.Relationships are for the living, and persons on earth and "in" heaven are living. Just because we can't call someone on the phone, it doesn't mean that a relationship isn't a two way thing. If a friend of mine is deep in the Amazon, and there is no possibility of communication, can we not think about each other and pray for one another - and doesn't that constitute a relationship of sorts?

Why would I want people in heaven to know I'm still thinking about them? They lack nothing! God is their all. That's what heaven is.Why would you want anyone to know that you're thinking about them?

If it's true that heaven is not a place, couldn't I say that I lack nothing here on earth, and, therefore, would it follow that I shouldn't care if people on earth are thinking about me? God is my all - even here, isn't He? That is what heaven is - and that is why we ought not limit "heaven" to some magical "place."

I'm not hoping for that. My father passed away, my brother passed away, but I'm not hoping either is thinking of me now. Why would I? Would that help me in any way? God is thinking about me, loving me, there are people on earth thinking about, also loving me, as amazing as it sounds. What do I need the departed for? They can't communicate with me.Isn't there a sense that to love is to do loving things? Isn't thinking about someone a loving thing? Isn't praying for someone a loving thing? If those "in" heaven are capable of love, why wouldn't they be able to think about and pray for those that they love?

As to what you need the departed for, since they can't communicate with you, it might seem that they aren't necessary - but the departed, are they really departed? Maybe they're closer to you than you think, and maybe they do communicate with us. How does Christ, who also is "departed", communicate with us?

[Hans Deventer]

Does there have to be?

Yes, for me to believe it. It would be a setback, though. I presume they don't have to pray, that they can simply address the Lord directly as I would talk to someone I meet.


Is there a Scripture that clearly states that they aren't or couldn't be?

Wait a minute, the burden of the proof is on you. Protestants have always rejected this because of this very point. I stick with our Article of Faith:

IV. The Holy Scriptures
4. We believe in the plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures,
by which we understand the 66 books of the Old and
New Testaments, given by divine inspiration, inerrantly revealing
the will of God concerning us in all things necessary
to our salvation, so that whatever is not contained therein is
not to be enjoined as an article of faith.

If it's not in the Scriptures, it is not necessary for our salvation, which means it is irrelevant and/or speculative.

Relationships are for the living, and persons on earth and "in" heaven are living. Just because we can't call someone on the phone, it doesn't mean that a relationship isn't a two way thing. If a friend of mine is deep in the Amazon, and there is no possibility of communication, can we not think about each other and pray for one another - and doesn't that constitute a relationship of sorts?

Only if you know that praying is the case. Which requires another form of communication than merely the praying. So, no, it isn't a relationship of sorts by merely praying. You would at least need to know someone is praying.

Why would you want anyone to know that you're thinking about them?

What is it you are trying to say here?

If it's true that heaven is not a place, couldn't I say that I lack nothing here on earth, and, therefore, would it follow that I shouldn't care if people on earth are thinking about me? God is my all - even here, isn't He? That is what heaven is - and that is why we ought not limit "heaven" to some magical "place."

I'm not saying heaven is a place, but that is hardly relevant to the discussion.
And I am not saying God is my all. God himself said it wasn't good that a man be alone. I agree with Him. I see in the people on earth that love me, something of the love of God for me. And I do believe we were meant to live that way. Man is a social being. But I have never ever heard we were meant to live in communion with the departed.

It seems that especially the Old Testament shies away from the cultures of death, especially the Egyptian one, and strongly emphasizes that it is the living that praise God and live with him. In the New Testament, the picture of heaven is getting a little clearer but there are no admonitions to seek contact with them. Taking the Bible as a whole, it seems were are warned rather than encouraged to seek contact with the departed.


Isn't there a sense that to love is to do loving things? Isn't thinking about someone a loving thing? Isn't praying for someone a loving thing? If those "in" heaven are capable of love, why wouldn't they be able to think about and pray for those that they love?

Why is thinking about someone a loving thing? You can hate a person and think about him/her all the time with anger. Hardly a loving thing, in my book.

I'm sure people in heaven are capable of love. Otherwise it would be hell we're discussing here. What that love exactly means is probably beyond what we can comprehend. If it is closer to God's love than ours is, that will certainly be true. There are too many questions that start with, "if God is love, than why........?" I've learned that from "if ...... is love" on, the next argument is rarely saying much if anything at all.

As to what you need the departed for, since they can't communicate with you, it might seem that they aren't necessary - but the departed, are they really departed? Maybe they're closer to you than you think, and maybe they do communicate with us.

Had any discussions with the departed lately? I didn't.

How does Christ, who also is "departed", communicate with us?

I actually heard He was risen. Don't recall much communication with us while He was dead.

[Jamie Wayne]

Yes, for me to believe it. It would be a setback, though. I presume they don't have to pray, that they can simply address the Lord directly as I would talk to someone I meet.

What is prayer if not addressing the Lord directly?


Wait a minute, the burden of the proof is on you. Protestants have always rejected this because of this very point. I stick with our Article of Faith:
IV. The Holy Scriptures
4. We believe in the plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures,
by which we understand the 66 books of the Old and
New Testaments, given by divine inspiration, inerrantly revealing
the will of God concerning us in all things necessary
to our salvation, so that whatever is not contained therein is
not to be enjoined as an article of faith.If it's not in the Scriptures, it is not necessary for our salvation, which means it is irrelevant and/or speculative.

There is no burden of proof because I'm not trying to prove anything; I'm simply not closing my mind to the possibility - which doesn't require proof, it only requires that there isn't anything contrary to Scripture.

As to it not being necessary for salvation, that's right...it's not necessary that we believe this for salvation, though believing in it doesn't alter our salvation either, so I would see that as a moot point.

The Article of Faith, therefore, is irrelevant.


Only if you know that praying is the case. Which requires another form of communication than merely the praying. So, no, it isn't a relationship of sorts by merely praying. You would at least need to know someone is praying.

Ok, so what about someone "in" heaven being able to love me, even while I'm still here on earth? How do I "know" that their loving me is the case? Does that require another form of communication than merely their loving? If I love them, and they love me, doesn't that set up a relationship of love between us regardless of whether I know by some form of communication?


What is it you are trying to say here?

You asked what it would matter if someone "in" heaven was thinking about you?

I asked what it matters if someone here, on earth, was thinking about you.

Doesn't it "warm" your heart to know that someone is thinking about you - whether "in" heaven or on earth?


I'm not saying heaven is a place, but that is hardly relevant to the discussion.

If you say so...


And I am not saying God is my all. God himself said it wasn't good that a man be alone. I agree with Him. I see in the people on earth that love me, something of the love of God for me. And I do believe we were meant to live that way. Man is a social being. But I have never ever heard we were meant to live in communion with the departed.

I am never alone, Hans, for the Lord my God is always with me.

Regardless, if we take the communion of saints seriously, don't we have relationship with the departed saints when we join with them in hosanna's?

It seems that especially the Old Testament shies away from the cultures of death, especially the Egyptian one, and strongly emphasizes that it is the living that praise God and live with him. In the New Testament, the picture of heaven is getting a little clearer but there are no admonitions to seek contact with them. Taking the Bible as a whole, it seems were are warned rather than encouraged to seek contact with the departed.

I'm not talking about getting together with some tarot card reader or something, Hans; I'm talking about asking a saint in heaven to pray for us, which in my mind, reinforces the fact that they are still living - that they aren't departed any more than Christ is departed - for they are resurrected with Him.

Why is thinking about someone a loving thing? You can hate a person and think about him/her all the time with anger. Hardly a loving thing, in my book.

Correct. Thinking alone isn't a loving thing, but thinking lovingly is a loving act, whereas thinking hatefully is a hateful act.

I'm sure people in heaven are capable of love. Otherwise it would be hell we're discussing here. What that love exactly means is probably beyond what we can comprehend. If it is closer to God's love than ours is, that will certainly be true. There are too many questions that start with, "if God is love, than why........?" I've learned that from "if ...... is love" on, the next argument is rarely saying much if anything at all.

If people in heaven are capable of love, then why would it be a surprise to think that it might be possible that, as a loving act, they could intercede for us?


Had any discussions with the departed lately? I didn't.


I actually heard He was risen. Don't recall much communication with us while He was dead.

Yes, and those who you call "departed", Hans, are they dead, or are they alive with the risen Christ?

Do you hold discussions with the risen Christ? Do you have any audible recordings of the conversations with Him?

I'm not talking about discussions...I'm talking about asking for intercession. It's not like I'm suggesting that anyone ask the "departed" what the capitol of Nigeria is anymore than I'm suggesting that anyone ask God what the capitol of Nigeria is.

[James Diggs]

Good point Eric, I sometimes struggle enough asking others in lifetime to pray for me because I wonder what good it will do- but I ask anyway in faith. Frankly I don’t see it as that much further of a stretch for some to ask the saints of old to pray for them too.

I think in one sense we have to ask ourselves if we really believe the saints of old are still living. Jesus responded to the Sadducees in Matthew 22: 31-32 by saying, "But regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God: ‘I AM THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, AND THE GOD OF ISAAC, AND THE GOD OF JACOB'? He is not the God of the dead but of the living."

Yes, they are alive so then the question is, are they still part of the body of Christ? I don’t see why not unless you want to say that they are “asleep” and won’t really live again until some future time but I am not sure how we can say for sure definitively one way or not. Still I there is a mystery to the body of Christ that ties us not only to one another in our shared physical lifetimes but also to the whole body of Christ through out history.

I have not had a lot of personal experience with Roman Catholicism, and though praying to the saints is not something I have gotten into, but I don’t think I would be so quick to toss the idea out the window as ridiculous. Whether we go as far as to actually pray to saints that had passed away or not Catholics may actually have a better view of the extent of our connection to one another in Christ as the church than we do.

[David Parker]

For me, I think it all boils down to the question of whether those who are dead in Christ can see/hear beyond the veil. I KNOW God hears my prayers...I don't know if the saints do.

And I don't know of any scriptures outside of the Revelation that suggest otherwise.

[Jamie Wayne]

Since neither God nor the saints have ears, one might wonder how hearing is possible for either...but if God can hear us without ears, maybe they can, too. I reckon we don't know, but I'd like to err on the side of not limiting what is possible.

[Jamie Wayne]

I KNOW God hears my prayers...I don't know if the saints do.

I reckon it's safe to say that God would hear us if we were to ask the saints "in" heaven to pray for us, too; so I wonder, if it is the case that the saints "in" heaven don't hear us (or even if they do), whether God is somehow offended by our asking them (whether they "hear" us or not) to pray for us.

I don't think God would be anymore offended than if we were asking someone on earth to pray for us.

If that's the case, then no harm is done, either way, and - either way, as God hears us.

[Hans Deventer]

What is prayer if not addressing the Lord directly?

Prayer is a very limited way of communication. I presume that those in heaven are way beyond it. I most certainly hope to get beyond that myself when I get there.

There is no burden of proof because I'm not trying to prove anything

Ok, that's clear.

I'm simply not closing my mind to the possibility - which doesn't require proof, it only requires that there isn't anything contrary to Scripture.

For me to believe things about heaven, it would require Scriptural proof. I guess that's a difference then.

Ok, so what about someone "in" heaven being able to love me, even while I'm still here on earth? How do I "know" that their loving me is the case? Does that require another form of communication than merely their loving? If I love them, and they love me, doesn't that set up a relationship of love between us regardless of whether I know by some form of communication?

That clarifies. Thanks. The question then becomes, can I have a relationship with someone I have no communication with? Let's put it this way, I for one cannot imagine it.

You asked what it would matter if someone "in" heaven was thinking about you?

I asked what it matters if someone here, on earth, was thinking about you.

Doesn't it "warm" your heart to know that someone is thinking about you - whether "in" heaven or on earth?

Only if I know they do. Otherwise, no.

I am never alone, Hans, for the Lord my God is always with me.

That's great! It wasn't enough for Adam though, according to God's estimation.

Regardless, if we take the communion of saints seriously, don't we have relationship with the departed saints when we join with them in hosanna's?

Let's put it this way. If I would outlive my wife (and trust me, I do have a relationship with her, one I would even consider very good), I'll have no more communication with her till we meet again in heaven. I'll have memories, her face on pictures, perhaps her smell in some clothes, her face and speech on video, but there won't be any communication. Which actually is the very thing that makes death such an enemy.
If I'd be at the other end of the world, but still be able to communicate through email or by phone, I'd miss her too but it would be totally different. There is no communication through the gates of death.

I'm not talking about getting together with some tarot card reader or something, Hans; I'm talking about asking a saint in heaven to pray for us, which in my mind, reinforces the fact that they are still living - that they aren't departed any more than Christ is departed - for they are resurrected with Him.

I thought the resurrection is still to come? 2 Tim 2:18? I believe people who die are alive to God, but the resurrection is a future event. They are in some intermediate state, it seems.

If people in heaven are capable of love, then why would it be a surprise to think that it might be possible that, as a loving act, they could intercede for us?

Why would that be necessary if Christ and the Holy Spirit are already doing that in heaven? This brings us back to Roland's point. To me, it would be a totally pointless activity.
People who pray for me on this earth (and only if they tell me!) encourage me to put my trust in God. I have no perception of people praying for me who don't say so, and hence, they do nothing for me. Prayer is not about getting God to do something by adding to the number of those who pray. He's already more than willing to do so. Prayer is about a relationship with God. Praying together adds a communal aspect to that, which is very good. We need each other.

Yes, and those who you call "departed", Hans, are they dead, or are they alive with the risen Christ?

Alive, obviously. That's not the point. Question would be, how? It seems that the few instants where deceased (or whatever other word you would prefer) people appeared on earth, were rather special cases.

Do you hold discussions with the risen Christ? Do you have any audible recordings of the conversations with Him?

I have indeed heard Him speak as close to audible as it can get, yes. And more people have. But I have never heard anything from anyone else in heaven. Nor do I seek it. Or their prayers. I have no use for the prayers of people I can't communicate with. They don't have to ask God on my behalf, I trust Jesus to do that. Which is, it seems, the very point of the objection Protestants have regarding the way Catholics use Mary and the saints. Its a mistaken concept of prayer. (See Roland's post)

[Jamie Wayne]

I have indeed heard Him speak as close to audible as it can get, yes.

Hmmm...

For me it's pretty black or white - either it's audible or not.

What exactly does "as close to audible as it can get" mean?

Does that mean "not audible"?

[Hans Deventer]

Hmmm...

For me it's pretty black or white - either it's audible or not.

What exactly does "as close to audible as it can get" mean?

Does that mean "not audible"?

I'm sorry, it wasn't so black and white. But very real all the same. I still cherish that moment as very, very precious indeed.

[Ian Gentles]

Well interestingly enough, we take a lot of comfort from prayers of apostles, David, and yes Jesus himself!

[Roland Hearn]

Can we not include those "in" heaven in the sharing of our lives, and can they not, in return, share the grace and faith that they have with us?

I sincerely hope that the answer to this question is a resounding YES.

Jamie, I have no idea how you would define relationship, nor what possible value faith is in heaven. Grace is a dynamic process of transformation for us here, I have no idea how that plays out in heaven but it is definitely different from what we receive here. And no I have no relationship with Brad in heaven. I have memories of him here that are dear to me and I will walk with him again but there is absolutely nothing, beyond the most vague warm fuzzies, of value in the idea that somehow there is relationship between those that are here and those that are gone on. I do not think Brad has wasted a second of eternity interceding for me, he was about to and then saw that Jesus had that covered.

[Jamie Wayne]

Praying together adds a communal aspect to that, which is very good.

Liturgically, aren't we joining our voices with the angels and archangels and all the accompaniment of heaven when we worship God with, "Holy, holy, holy"?

Aren't we, therefore, communing with the saints in heaven when we do that?

Why, then, would you think that praying together with the saints "in" heaven would be any different?

Praying together adds a communal aspect which is very good - if nothing else, it helps us to remember the cloud of witnesses that have gone before us.

When we pray the Our Father, don't we join in the world wide community of people who are praying that same prayer - whether YOU know they are praying or not?

Christendom becomes much bigger when we include all of the people everywhere who pray the Lord's Prayer or profess one of the Creeds - and even bigger when we include everyone who has every done so.

When I profess the Apostles' Creed, perhaps only in a mystical way, but nevertheless, am I not a part of the same community which includes many martyrs who died professing that Creed? When we pray the Lord's Prayer, am I not joining my voice with Catholics and Orthodox brothers who, though they may believe and practice differently, are part of the same mystical body of Christ?

How is this not a communal thing, Hans?

Is it not communal because we haven't broken bread?

That's the funny thing about Communion, isn't it?

When I receive the Eucharist, I am giving thanks with St. Paul, and John Wesley, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and many others. In that moment, aren't we all communing? The Eucharist transcends time and space, in a sense, and with it I am united to all Christians everywhere, for we are all one in Christ - whether on earth or "in" heaven. Yet, even if there is no direct communication between St. Paul and myself, the Head knows what the body is doing. We are united in Christ. We commune in Christ. None of this is even possible without Christ. To think of asking saints "in" heaven to pray for me is predicated upon the risen Christ.

I believe that in baptism I am grafted to the body of Christ...and in that sense, there is relationship with the rest of the body. Even if I don't know the names of all the saints "in" heaven, we still have a relationship - maybe not one to another, but we have a relationship based in Christ as the Head of the body. Our relationship is based in Him - not in whether or not we can call each other on the phone.

Why does this seem so strange?

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Jamie, how are we told to pray? One is Our Father--another, in Jesus name.
Christ intercedes to the father for us. So, why would we need to pray to a saint, that is already in heaven?

I know what Hans means about "as near to audible" as it can be. There have been times, that God brought something to my mind so strong, and I might just jump up quickly and sit up straight, or stand up, the thought had hit as strongly, as possible, as if someone had spoken directly to me, about something. These instances actually happen, in the spiritual realm. Once, I was laying down, and all of a sudden a thought hit me so strongly, that I sat up, then got up and got paper and pen, and wrote to one of our children and their spouse. So, far as I knew, they were very good Christians. The thought that hit me in the face, so to speak said, and this is what I wrote. "If you don't change the way you are living, in two years or less, you and -----will be getting a divorce, and having a custody battle." I had to write that letter. Later I found out why, and they got things, that I had not known existed straightened out with God.

This is just one example. god speaks to us if we are in the center of His will, as best we know how, with His help to be. He might even "speak' if we are not where we should be, endeavoring to show us His way. But, we cannot intentionally do things, that we know to be sinful, and expect this kind of communication. But, we have to try the spirits, and ascertain, whether or not, they are of God. Satan, is able to appear as a thing of beauty an angel of light,(or his imps or demons may help him) come to us in a bright shinging way, that is realy wrong. But, if we live a life, in which God's spirit, bears witness with our spirit, that we are a child of God, we will learn whether or not, it is the spirit of God, speaking to us.

[Jamie Wayne]

Jamie, how are we told to pray? One is Our Father--another, in Jesus name.
Christ intercedes to the father for us. So, why would we need to pray to a saint, that is already in heaven?

When, dear Anne, did I say anything about praying to a saint in heaven?

I know haht Hans means about "as near to audible" as it can be.

I, too, know what Hans means...but the fact remains that "as near to audible as it can be" does not mean "audible." One can't expect audible communication from a saint in heaven if one doesn't expect audible communication from God Himself.

There have been times, that God brought something to my mind so strong, and I might just jump up quickly and sit up straight, or stand up, the thought had hit as strongly, as possible, as if someone had spoken directly to me, about something. These instances actually happen, in the spiritual realm.

There have been times that I have experienced something similar, Anne, for sure. However, I think that your last sentence there is exactly my point - this stuff happens in the "spiritual realm" if it happens at all.

Once, I was laying down, and all of a sudden a thought hit me so strongly, that I sat up, then got up and got paper and pen, and wrote to one of our children and their spouse.

Sometimes God does hit us in an unexpected moment, but other times I suspect that God speaks to us because we are listening. That is what meditation or contemplative prayer is often focused on - that part of prayer where we shut up and listen. I suspect that the reason why many people don't "hear" anything from the saints in heaven is because they aren't listening. I'm not claiming to have ever "heard" anything from a saint in heaven, nor do I ask the saints in heaven to pray for me - let me get that straight. However, I think that it is wholly possible that God would allow for some people, perhaps Roman Catholics in particular, to be spoken to by the saints in heaven because they may be more likely to be listening.

In other words, Anne, I believe that God uses the principle of accommodation when speaking to human beings here on earth; what I mean by that is that God speaks to us in ways that we can understand. If that means that God speaks to us through the saints in heaven, then so be it. I am not going to limit the means by which God communicates to us when it's not clearly against what Scripture teaches.

The same could be said of a Marian apparition. Protestants dismiss them as nonsense, often, but, for Catholics who value Mary much more than most Protestants do, why could God not use Mary to speak to His children if they are keeping an ear open to His holy mother? God speaks to us in ways that we understand - so, to a Roman Catholic, for example, why couldn't He speak to them through an intermediary? Is that really so wrong?

Further, if there's nothing wrong with our asking other human beings here on earth to pray for us, then what's the big deal about asking the saints in heaven, who are just as alive as we are - if not more so, to pray for us, too? I don't believe that God listens to anyone more than anyone else, but what is the harm done?

For example, if someone finds the idea of speaking to God directly to be intimidating - and maybe more of us should have the sort of awe that produces gibberish out of our mouths before the Almighty God - then what is so wrong with asking Mary (or some other "saint") to speak to God for us? Either way God hears us, but perhaps for some it is easier to petition a prayer "through" an intermediary. I don't see how that's such a bad thing, really.

I was watching some movie the other day where a teenage girl began praying to God by saying, "Most Awesome Father..." There's nothing wrong with that, but it came across as almost irreverent. She could have been saying, "Most Totally Groovy Dude," or something else like how teenagers speak these days. My point is that we've often come before the Father with no reverence whatsoever. We pray to the Almighty God as if He is a buddy of ours instead of the Sovereign of the Universe. It's as if God is just another one of our home boys rather than someone to fear - to bow down before in utter awe of the mystery of who He is. Imagine going before the President of the United States of America and calling him "most awesome President" or "most totally groovy dude." I can't imagine me doing that. I might use "Mr. President" - or, even, "Sir."

Regardless, it is interesting to note that the words, so often said before the Lord's Prayer, in some traditions, says that "we boldly proclaim" before launching into the "Our Father." How bold is it that we address God as "Our Father"? If we say it all the time we may forget how bold it truly is to call God "Our Father." In my opinion, it is only because Jesus told us to address God that way that we even have the right to address the Father with such familiarity.

What I'm trying to say in all of this, Anne, and I know that I strayed quite a bit, is that I don't like how easy it is to bash Catholics (and others) for "praying to" Mary and other saints. I don't like how easy it is for Protestants to disregard asking saints to pray for us, as if doing so is stupid. I don't do it, but I respect it. I don't do it, but I understand it. I don't do it, but I try to understand why those who do.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Does the Bible say that God is a spirit and we that worship Him, must worship Him in spirit and truth? Well, that may be the way he speaks to us. It could be in a way, that as Hans would say, as near to audible, as it can be. We know wherin we speak, because His spirit has spoken to us in His own way.

I very much veer away from saying that God told me this or that, for fear it may not be God. But, when it does happen to me in a strong way, as if it is the still small whisper of the spirt, speaking, as "near to audible, as it can be," then I know that it is definitely from God.
Once, I felt that God told me something, and I was struggling with it. I told Dwayne, and he told me to do it, if I had to, but it was hard enough being a minister, without me doing that. He gave me a scripture, saying that, it was from the OT, but he felt like applying it to today, if I could accept it. We were about ready to go to a nearby revival service. I ask God, if it was from Him, to continue to press it upon my mind-if not, to take it away. He took it away,

His way of speaking, is as plain as actually being audible.

[Hans Deventer]

What I'm trying to say in all of this, Anne, and I know that I strayed quite a bit, is that I don't like how easy it is to bash Catholics (and others) for "praying to" Mary and other saints. I don't like how easy it is for Protestants to disregard asking saints to pray for us, as if doing so is stupid. I don't do it, but I respect it. I don't do it, but I understand it. I don't do it, but I try to understand why those who do.

All the best. You haven't convinced me that it isn't a dangerous concept at least. It reminds me way too much of the old gnostic heresies about all the different mediating spheres and angels etc.

I'll stick to what the Scriptures tell me. Good enough for me.

[Jamie Wayne]

All the best.

Why thank you, Hans; how kind of you.


You haven't convinced me that it isn't a dangerous concept at least. It reminds me way too much of the old gnostic heresies about all the different mediating spheres and angels etc.There are clear differences between "the old gnostic heresies about all the different mediating spheres and angels" and what I'm talking about. The gnostic heresy was an issue of metaphysics, whereas what I'm talking about relates to the theologically sound principle of accommodation. That's a huge difference, Hans. I suppose if you didn't take into consideration the metaphysical difference between the gnostic system and the orthodox metaphysics that I'm applying the principle of accommodation to, it might seem a bit dangerous and remind you of heresy. It wouldn't be the first time that you've come close to suggesting that my thinking is close to heresy. The funny thing about that, though, is that heresies often contain much truth - yet often they are demonized as if they are completely nonsense, which usually isn't the case at all.

What I said about intermediaries had to do with something totally different than the gnostic notion that God is completely unknowable, and, therefore, that intermediaries are necessary.

It seems like a cheap shot to play the "heresy card."


I'll stick to what the Scriptures tell me. Good enough for me.Scripture tells many people many things, Hans. That's why what Scripture tells YOU is not enough.

We need community to interpret Scripture, and there's a huge community (the Roman Catholic church) that interprets Scripture in such a way that asking saints "in" heaven to intercede for us is just fine. Does that make them right? No. However, it does illustrate the point that many people seek to "stick to what the Scriptures tell" them - and it's "good enough" for them, too.

Who do I side with, then, when confronted with multiples interpretations of what Scripture "tell them"?

It's not saying much, then, to say, "I'll stick to what the Scriptures tell me. Good enough for me."

[Billie Goodson]

Jaime,

Can I ask you a question? Do you place any faith in the "saint" being able to accomplish anything within the prayer request, apart from joining with you in offering the prayer?

[Jamie Wayne]

Jaime,

Can I ask you a question? Do you place any faith in the "saint" being able to accomplish anything within the prayer request, apart from joining with you in offering the prayer?

Not really, Billie; no.

[Billie Goodson]

Not really, Billie; no.

So, it would be safe to say that it is not an article of your faith, thereby, a non-essential?

Or, were you saying I can't ask you a question? -- just for humor added only.

[Jamie Wayne]

So, it would be safe to say that it is not an article of your faith, thereby, a non-essential?

Non-essentials I would consider those things not necessary for salvation; therefore, it is not an essential.

However, shouldn't we also allow for the freedom that goes along with non-essentials?

I'm not really asking for anything more than that.

[Genevieve Boller]

Maybe I'm just too simplistic, but I really don't see the point.

If I can take my request straight to the King, knowing I have audience with Him at all times and under any circumstances, why on earth would I go to his subordinates or servants?

As for why the Bible says Christ intercedes for us, I think it may have been partly to prevent people from getting into an uproar after He was gone, arguing about who it was proper to pray to--Jesus or God.

Also, because Christ (as one person of the Trinity) intercedes for us, and because the Holy Spirit (as another person of the Trinity) speaks our needs for us even if we can't put them into words, we are given absolute certainty that our prayers and needs are known to God, in all His fullness.

[Billie Goodson]

I have never really been keen on this particular subject. I think Roland probably best stated what my opinion is in that it seems to relegate me to some inferior position in the kingdom (major paraphrase of Roland's post). I had a RC friend that once explained this entire issue to me from their view -- I wasn't particularly moved to his side, but, I at least came away with the belief that he was not expecting that Mary, or some other saint could in any way perform an action for God, or as God. Since you say you have no faith in that being a possibility either, then we seem to be in some agreement. May I be presumptuous as to assume you do not hold that I should engage in prayer to the saints?

I don't think we should just liberally apply the essential/non-essential balm over every wound. I think good discourse in discussing the issues is relevant to the purposes here. What I do find interesting is that we all retreat to the term heresy far too easily. I do it when I read McLaren, that is for sure -- I think someone else said on the Osteen thread, we should really be careful how we throw that word around. I have decided that I will regard my own advice I used to give about yelling at idiot officials, I prefer to say the least, so that what I said was heard -- let's save heresy for those "stop the bus" moments.

[Billie Goodson]

I will say the Catholics cite some great sources for their doctrine -- just not sure I see it as the only valid interpretation.

[Jamie Wayne]

Maybe I'm just too simplistic, but I really don't see the point.

If I can take my request straight to the King, knowing I have audience with Him at all times and under any circumstances, why on earth would I go to his subordinates or servants?

As for why the Bible says Christ intercedes for us, I think it may have been partly to prevent people from getting into an uproar after He was gone, arguing about who it was proper to pray to--Jesus or God.

Also, because Christ (as one person of the Trinity) intercedes for us, and because the Holy Spirit (as another person of the Trinity) speaks our needs for us even if we can't put them into words, we are given absolute certainty that our prayers and needs are known to God, in all His fullness.

Do you ever ask anyone to pray for you?

To some, asking someone "in" heaven is little different than asking someone on earth to pray for them.

If you can take your prayer request directly to God, then why ask anyone else, whether on earth or "in" heaven to pray for you?

[Hans Deventer]

We need community to interpret Scripture, and there's a huge community (the Roman Catholic church) that interprets Scripture in such a way that asking saints "in" heaven to intercede for us is just fine. Does that make them right? No. However, it does illustrate the point that many people seek to "stick to what the Scriptures tell" them - and it's "good enough" for them, too.

Jamie, you full well know the Roman Catholic Church does NOT "stick to what the Scriptures tell" them. That's theology 101. You know better than saying that.

[Jamie Wayne]

May I be presumptuous as to assume you do not hold that I should engage in prayer to the saints?

Prayer to the saints? No. But, that's different than asking the saints to intercede for us.

I don't think we should just liberally apply the essential/non-essential balm over every wound. I think good discourse in discussing the issues is relevant to the purposes here.

I agree, but I'd rather err on the side of freedom when it comes to non-essentials.

What I do find interesting is that we all retreat to the term heresy far too easily.

I agree. I'm trying to get better at that, myself.

I will say the Catholics cite some great sources for their doctrine -- just not sure I see it as the only valid interpretation.

True - I don't see it as the only valid interpretation, either, but the problem seems to be when a valid interpretation does not jive with our own, personal interpretation. Then we often invalidate someone else's' interpretation in favour of our own.

[Mike Wooldridge]

From www.lsministries.org
The Bible affirms four things regarding Jesus Christ as the believer's intercessor:

1. Our Intercessor has direct access to God.

Romans 8:34 "Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us."


2. Our Intercessor is always on the job.

Hebrews 7:25 "He's there from now to eternity to save everyone who comes to God through him, always on the job to speak up for them" (The Message).

3. Our Intercessor is our friend.

Job 16:19-21 "Even now my witness is in heaven; my advocate is on high. My intercessor is my friend as my eyes pour out tears to God; on behalf of a man he pleads with God as a man pleads for his friend."

4. Our Intercessor is acceptable to God.

1 John 2:1 "My children, I am writing this to you so that you should not commit sin. But if anybody does, we have in Jesus Christ one who is acceptable to God and will plead our cause to the Father" (REB).

It is the privilege of every Christian to intercede for others. However, the prayers of God's people are only made effective because of the Intercessor who presents them to His Father and our Father. Having died a vicarious death for sinners, having lived a perfect life of obedience, having been exalted to the Father's right hand, Jesus is the believer's Intercessor with the Father. Hallelujah! What a Savior, what an Intercessor! In the words of Charles Wesley:

He ever lives above
For me to intercede,
His all-redeeming love,
His precious blood to plead.
His blood atoned for all our race,
His blood atoned for all our race,
And sprinkles now the throne of grace.

If these statements are true, why would we need an intercessor other than Jesus?

[Jamie Wayne]

Jamie, you full well know the Roman Catholic Church does NOT "stick to what the Scriptures tell" them. That's theology 101. You know better than saying that.

...and you know full well that I don't "hate" you, Hans.

Thank you for your prayers, by the way; I do appreciate them. My work situation has greatly improved, too.

As to the Roman Catholic Church, often the real problem is that Catholics don't stick to what their own church tells them. Those Catholics who worship Mary, for example, do so against the dictates of the Vatican. Worship, or latria, is reserved for God alone. Mary, per their official view, is due hyper-dulia, a heightened adoration, above the rest of the saints, because of her status as Theotokos, but that should not constitute worship. When it does, regardless of Scripture, those Catholics are in violation of their own doctrines.

This is exactly why, Hans, many Protestants are too quick to judge Catholics - because we often see Catholics doing things that they should not be doing by their own standards! Then, because they don't know any better, they teach their Protestant friends incorrectly, and we perpetuate the misunderstandings. It's really a mess. Catholics need to know their own doctrine better - and we Protestants should judge Catholicism by its official doctrine...not by the practices of Catholics who go against their own teachings.

As to "Theology 101", I think I have that covered. I've read more "Catholic" stuff than anything else, and probably half of my "theology" books are Catholic. My old roommate of 10 years went to Mass every single day for the entire 10 years. I came to know Catholic teachings pretty well, because I wouldn't take his word for it - I wanted to know what the official teachings were.

Regardless...I don't like the idea of starting with the premiss that Catholics do not stick with what Scripture teaches. I think that they try to do that more than we often give them credit for.

[Jamie Wayne]

If these statements are true, why would we need an intercessor other than Jesus?

So when the Board was meeting to decide whether to hire on the new pastors, I was wrong to be sitting outside their door praying - interceding - for the meeting?

Isn't "intercessory" prayer valuable?

[Hans Deventer]

As to "Theology 101", I think I have that covered.

Then you know that the RC church has also officially announced dogma's that were not based on the Scriptures but on tradition. It's not the misinformed laity who made that up. It was an official declaration by a pope.

The other day I read that the Greek Orthodox churches pride themselves on not having issued a dogma in more than a thousand years. There may be lots of wisdom in that.

[Genevieve Boller]

Do you ever ask anyone to pray for you?

To some, asking someone "in" heaven is little different than asking someone on earth to pray for them.

I understand that, and I don't have any personal problem with it other than I just don't get it. Like the issue of speaking in tongues--if it aids in their faith in some substantial way and it isn't a hindrance to any truth, then they should go ahead and do it. I won't be teaching my kids to ask for intercession by saints, though, because I want them to fully comprehend that God is intimately personal and absolutely approachable.
I dislike anyone in a church leadership position teaching people to ask saints "in" heaven to pray for them because it gives the implication that speaking directly to God is insufficient, or that they, the "regular" laypeople, are not good enough or holy enough to approach God. I don't hold anything against Catholicism in this regard, by the way. I just think it's an un-helpful practice that has the potential to distance people from God. I know that there are many Catholics who do have a very personal relationship with God regardless of being part of a church which (as I see it) makes it more difficult than necessary.

If you can take your prayer request directly to God, then why ask anyone else, whether on earth or "in" heaven to pray for you?

When I ask people here on earth to pray for me it's because I'm asking them to help me carry my burden. Usually after someone has agreed to pray for me, they will later check up on me, ask me how such and such is going, and maybe offer to help if it's the kind of circumstance they can help with. It isn't because I think that the quantity of prayers hitting God's ears will increase the likelihood of my prayer being answered.

This may be off-kilter to some, but I think that praying for each other is primarily a means of strengthening our family ties and ensuring our solidarity as the body of Christ.

[Jamie Wayne]

Then you know that the RC church has also officially announced dogma's that were not based on the Scriptures but on tradition.

What has that to do with asking saints to intercede for us?

Dogmas such as the Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility have nothing to do with that.

Traditions, in themselves, aren't such a bad thing, either - and traditions don't have to be based on Scripture, though it is problematic when they run counter to Scripture.

I'm not sure that asking saints to pray for us runs counter to Scripture. Perhaps if Scripture were more clear, then we wouldn't have room for such a discussion.

[Billie Goodson]

Prayer to the saints? No. But, that's different than asking the saints to intercede for us.


My mistake, I used the term "praying to the saints" to mean asking for them to intercede. So, I will rephrase my question -- Would you agree that there is no requirement for me to ask the saints to intercede on my behalf, I can and maybe even should pray to God -- but, allowing for asking for intercession is not a substitution for personal prayer to God, just a supplement?




I agree, but I'd rather err on the side of freedom when it comes to non-essentials.


I am in agreement with you on that one.



True - I don't see it as the only valid interpretation, either, but the problem seems to be when a valid interpretation does not jive with our own, personal interpretation. Then we often invalidate someone else's' interpretation in favour of our own.

I think Mr. Wesley had some excellent comments to say about that. I will offer it here as a quote -- however, I want to be clear that I think we need to have discussion and dialog, the issue comes with dismissing each other (and am I ever preaching to myself here on this one -- this is something that really glared at me after reading two chapters in Moreland's book -- which, I highly recommend)

There was a man by the name of Acourt in the London Societies, who was not only a bigot, but a troubler of Israel, and who would argue in favor of his peculiar tenets at the devotional meetings. Charles Wesley heard of his conduct, and denied him admission. The next meeting, when John was present, Acourt came and inquired of him if he had been excluded for his opinions. Mr. Wesley asked, "Which opinions?" He replied, "That of election. I hold that a certain number are elected from eternity, and they must and shall be saved, and the rest of mankind must and shall be damned." He stated, "There are others in the Society of the same faith." Mr. Wesley replied that he never questioned their opinions. All he demanded was, that they should not trouble others by disputing about them. He said, "Nay, but I will dispute about them. You are all wrong, and I am determined to set you right." Mr. Wesley answered, "I fear your coming with this view will neither profit you nor us." Acourt said, "I will go, then, and tell all the world that you and your brother are false prophets, and I tell you that in a fortnight you will all be in confusion." He left, but his prediction proved false.


From www.lsministries.org
[B][I]The Bible affirms four things regarding Jesus Christ as the believer's intercessor:


Mike, I don't think anyone is saying that Jesus in not an intercessor. In fact, in Catholic theology, it is the relationship to Christ as the Queen Mother that is significant in their doctrine. It harkens back to the first miracle of Jesus when Mary asked of him, and he granted. (Although some have said that he referred to Mary in a perjorative form when he responded directly to her, this is not in keeping with my own view and translation of the verse).

Gee, I don't even really care for the doctrine, and here I sit defending it. I am going to go find a requirements document to read.

[Billie Goodson]

Traditions, in themselves, aren't such a bad thing, either - and traditions don't have to be based on Scripture, though it is problematic when they run counter to Scripture.

I'm not sure that asking saints to pray for us runs counter to Scripture. Perhaps if Scripture were more clear, then we wouldn't have room for such a discussion.

One last question -- Is scripture not a product of tradition?

[Jamie Wayne]

My mistake, I used the term "praying to the saints" to mean asking for them to intercede. So, I will rephrase my question -- Would you agree that there is no requirement for me to ask the saints to intercede on my behalf, I can and maybe even should pray to God -- but, allowing for asking for intercession is not a substitution for personal prayer to God, just a supplement?

Based on my answer to your last question, that essentials constitute those things necessary to salvation, I would certainly agree that there is no requirement to ask saints to intercede on your behalf. In fact, I have also said in this thread that I do not ask saints to intercede for me, either.

[Jamie Wayne]

One last question -- Is scripture not a product of tradition?

In a sense it is, sure...again showing that tradition isn't such a bad thing. We could even say that tradition existed before Scripture did, and it's likely that some of Scripture came from the oral tradition.

The canon of the New Testament, for example, didn't come from "Scripture," it came from the same Church which now asks saints to intercede for us.

If we accept that the Church, who formulated the canon which we accept as "Scripture" had the authority to do so, why do we reject other traditions that the same Church has established?

It would seem, in a sense, that the Church has more authority than Scripture does - since it was the Church who established the authority of Scripture.

Sometimes we forget that Scripture didn't write itself or determine itself!

[Charlotte Mercer]

In a sense it is, sure...again showing that tradition isn't such a bad thing. We could even say that tradition existed before Scripture did, and it's likely that some of Scripture came from the oral tradition.

The canon of the New Testament, for example, didn't come from "Scripture," it came from the same Church which now asks saints to intercede for us.

If we accept that the Church, who formulated the canon which we accept as "Scripture" had the authority to do so, why do we reject other traditions that the same Church has established?

It would seem, in a sense, that the Church has more authority than Scripture does - since it was the Church who established the authority of Scripture.

Sometimes we forget that Scripture didn't write itself or determine itself!

Maybe so, but there were several times when Jesus spoke out against people who used tradition to negate scripture. I'm not about to say that tradition is inherently evil or anything like that, but it does seem like, where tradition and scripture don't mesh, scripture should win out, and more specifically, the love of God should win out even over the laws of scripture (if there comes a time when we use the laws to go against Love).

[Jamie Wayne]

I can't argue with that, Charlotte.

I suppose the question, with regards to this issue, is whether tradition and Scripture do - or do not - mesh.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

We consider the scriptures as "God breathed" or God Inspired.
II Timothy 3: 16, 17

[Jamie Wayne]

Yes, but Anne, when Paul wrote that letter to Timothy was Paul referring to the letter that he was writing to Timothy? In other words, was Paul claiming that his words, at that very moment, were "God breathed"? That would be a bold proclamation, don't you think? Perhaps Paul was referring to the Torah and not 2nd Timothy?

[Jamie Wayne]

Furthermore, Anne, had the Church not canonized that passage from 2nd Timothy, you probably wouldn't be citing it.

The Church endorsed that verse, and that verse, as often used, endorses the Scriptures...yet it was the Church that canonized the Scriptures to which we now apply that verse which declares Scripture to be "God breathed."

Surely Paul didn't mean that the set of books that the Church would canonize a few hundred years after Paul was "God breathed" when he wrote that, as the Church hadn't put the Bible together yet.

It's not quite so simple, is it?

[Billie Goodson]

Maybe so, but there were several times when Jesus spoke out against people who used tradition to negate scripture. I'm not about to say that tradition is inherently evil or anything like that, but it does seem like, where tradition and scripture don't mesh, scripture should win out, and more specifically, the love of God should win out even over the laws of scripture (if there comes a time when we use the laws to go against Love).


One issue that needs some consideration in my opinion in regards to that statement Charlotte is that we cannot place our desire for a loving God above how he is revealed to us. Some would say "how can a loving God send people to hell" --

a loving God would surely not hold a person's past against them when he could have done "more" to convince them. He appeared to Moses as a burning bush, he knocked Saul to the ground and blinded him -- it is his lack of effort that kept me from getting saved, so, surely he can't hold that against me.

Yet, scripture tells us that all will not be saved. Good theology provides how these two concepts are not at odds. God's love and the scriptural laws should not be at odds with one another -- or we have serious problems in our theology.

[Charlotte Mercer]

One issue that needs some consideration in my opinion in regards to that statement Charlotte is that we cannot place our desire for a loving God above how he is revealed to us. Some would say "how can a loving God send people to hell" --
Yet, scripture tells us that all will not be saved. Good theology provides how these two concepts are not at odds. God's love and the scriptural laws should not be at odds with one another -- or we have serious problems in our theology.

I'm going to leave it to others, and perhaps to another thread to explain why not all are saved, as I am certainly not adequate to explain that myself.

As to whether God's love and scriptural laws are at odds with one another, I do not think they are, but historically, many people have done very unloving things claiming the name of God, and, while I don't know all the specifics, I feel certain that many of them believed their actions to be founded in scripture. I don't believe, however, that their actions were necessarily what God intended merely because they were able to claim God's name.

[Billie Goodson]

I'm going to leave it to others, and perhaps to another thread to explain why not all are saved, as I am certainly not adequate to explain that myself.

Not really sure it needs to be explained, it was only offered as an example. I believe I am clear on the theology involved -- but, I would agree we should leave it to another thread if someone desires to pursue it.


As to whether God's love and scriptural laws are at odds with one another, I do not think they are, but historically, many people have done very unloving things claiming the name of God, and, while I don't know all the specifics, I feel certain that many of them believed their actions to be founded in scripture. I don't believe, however, that their actions were necessarily what God intended merely because they were able to claim God's name.

Very much in agreement with what you say. I think you and I agree that many of those things are not scripturally supported (I am going to throw in slavery just as an example). They were not even universally declared scripturally-supported then. I think that is where we look at the totality of scripture and decide if an interpretation is supportable -- today we would say slavery is not. I think the key here is that it was not a scriptural law that was being espoused -- I don't think the position was "thou shall have slaves". That gets us back to the essentials, non-essentials, and then some other category such as permissible? Does that make sense?

[Charlotte Mercer]

Very much in agreement with what you say. I think you and I agree that many of those things are not scripturally supported (I am going to throw in slavery just as an example). They were not even universally declared scripturally-supported then. I think that is where we look at the totality of scripture and decide if an interpretation is supportable -- today we would say slavery is not. I think the key here is that it was not a scriptural law that was being espoused -- I don't think the position was "thou shall have slaves". That gets us back to the essentials, non-essentials, and then some other category such as permissible? Does that make sense?

It does make sense. It sounds like what you're saying is that since the bible doesn't say that we should or shouldn't do this, we are left to see what the bible says about the character of God in general and decide if the position in question goes along with the character of God or not, and then decide whether or not this particular issue seems to be essential to salvation or not, and if it's not, then why should we cast our fellow Christians out for their position on it?

[Mike Wooldridge]

So when the Board was meeting to decide whether to hire on the new pastors, I was wrong to be sitting outside their door praying - interceding - for the meeting?

Isn't "intercessory" prayer valuable?
Of course. My question remains, why ask a saint to intercede when we can go directly to Jesus? I'm not a theologian so I need things simple. It seems the simplest way is to go to a proven intercessor-Jesus.

[Hans Deventer]

What has that to do with asking saints to intercede for us?

It was the discussion about whether or not the RC Church build their teaching on the Scriptures, remember? They don't always do that. As in the issue at hand.

Traditions, in themselves, aren't such a bad thing, either - and traditions don't have to be based on Scripture, though it is problematic when they run counter to Scripture.

Traditions can be innocent. Or not so innocent. But to teach the Faith based on traditions, is never innocent. It's crossing a line that shouldn't be crossed. It's no Roman Catholic prerogative, though.

[Hans Deventer]

Furthermore, Anne, had the Church not canonized that passage from 2nd Timothy, you probably wouldn't be citing it.

The Church endorsed that verse, and that verse, as often used, endorses the Scriptures...yet it was the Church that canonized the Scriptures to which we now apply that verse which declares Scripture to be "God breathed."

Surely Paul didn't mean that the set of books that the Church would canonize a few hundred years after Paul was "God breathed" when he wrote that, as the Church hadn't put the Bible together yet.

It's not quite so simple, is it?

Or it is. What's the reason for the Canon, if not to have a rule of faith? To be the judge of traditions of men? Paul most certainly referred to the Old Testament. And then the Church recognized that his words were "God breathed" in a similar way, and gathered the books of the New Testament that met the same qualification.

So the Church itself has defined what the Word of God is by which it is ruled. The one does not exclude the other. But ever since this has been done, it no longer has the freedom to add. Even if an original letter of Paul would be found in some excavation that wasn't included in the Scriptures, I don't think the Church will accept it as Scripture anymore, if only because there no longer is a unified Church that can make such a decision. We can't reverse history.

[Hans Deventer]

I was wondering, do those we love, who have gone on before us to glory, kinda put a word in for us with the Lord? We are told we are encompassed by a great cloud of witnesses! This seems to show a great interest in Glory of what is happening down here!

After lots of discussions, it seems to me that the answer to the original question is: we don't know. We do know that Jesus and the Holy Spirit do (Romans 8:26-27, Romans 8:34).

Then came the question if it would be a good or bad thing to ask others in heaven to pray for or with us. (Now I am not clear on how asking that would be any different than praying to them. It seems to me that prayer is the way we communicate with God. I know of no other way to communicate with the heavenly realm, but that is perhaps not a crucial issue in the discussion).

There have been a lot of arguments on either side of the topic here, but we seem to agree that Scriptures are silent on this issue. I haven't heard anyone argue this is an essential either. Christians all through the ages have had different opinions on this topic, which, for all I know, has turned neither side of the discussion into heathens. So, despite strong convictions, perceived dangers and the like, it is an issue of thinking and letting think. Or agree to disagree.

Perhaps the most interesting but least developed part of the discussion is the question, what is prayer anyway?

[Kathy O'Connor]

Raised and schooled as a Catholic, we were routinely taught to pray to the saints. Certain saints were considered "patron" saints for particular pray requests. Some I remember:

St. Anthony, the patron saint of lost items. I clearly remember my mom praying aloud, "Tony, Tony come around, _____ (item) is lost and must be found."

St. Theresa, The Little Flower: When your prayer petition is going to be answered, you will smell or receive roses.

St. Jude, the patron saint of impossible situations, lost causes, and by many, considered the patron saint of AA.

St. Michael, Courage.

St. Catherine, Purity.

There are MANY more, but my memory prevents me from recalling any others at this time.

I remember questioning my mom, "Why pray to a saint, when you can/should pray to Jesus?" Her response was that you don't go to a company and expect to meet with the president, you go through the workers." Personally, I disagreed with her then and still do today. That was part of the reason for my leaving the Catholic church.

Since there seem to be several former Catholics in the Nazarene Church, does anyone remember what "Indulgences" were all about? I seem to remember it having something to do with exiting purgatory for heaven.

[Eric Frey]

Since there seem to be several former Catholics in the Nazarene Church, does anyone remember what "Indulgences" were all about? I seem to remember it having something to do with exiting purgatory for heaven.

I'm not a former Roman Catholic, but if memory serves me right, this was a critical issue in the Lutheran Reformation. There had developed a system in RC piety where full salvation was granted only when every sin had been forgiven. Forgiveness required repentance and penance. An Indulgence was essentially a token of forgiveness. One could by an indulgence that would assure one of a forgiven sin. A get out of jail free card of sorts.

Some of you who are better experts please correct me.

[Jamie Wayne]

What's the reason for the Canon, if not to have a rule of faith? To be the judge of traditions of men?

And the "rule of faith" was, not to long after the apostolic age, the Apostles' Creed, which ties directly into what I've been saying about the "communion of saints," or have we forgotten that, too?

So the Church itself has defined what the Word of God is by which it is ruled. The one does not exclude the other. But ever since this has been done, it no longer has the freedom to add.

For such a Rob Bell fan, have you forgotten what he wrote about in his section on "binding and loosing"?

I'm not suggesting that we add to the canon, but the Church does, does it not, have the authority to add to the tradition of the Church if it is not contrary to Scripture. We would agree that many Roman Catholic practices seem contrary to our interpretation of Scripture, but this discussion (in my view) isn't about the misinterpretation of Scripture, it's about the freedom to practice things not contrary to Scripture.

There was a debate during the Reformation which went along the lines of whether we should only practice those things found in Scripture, or whether we were free to practice those things not contrary to Scripture. Part of it was (as part of this thread seems to be - whether intentionally or not) a reaction against what was perceived as the abuses of the Roman Catholic church. Some wanted to purge the Church of anything not found in Scripture; their motivation was to get rid of "Catholic" stuff. The Puritans, for example, did this; they got rid of lots of stuff not found in Scripture. I think that they did this to their own peril, as they threw out the baby with the bath water. Many of the rituals of "high" churches could be considered "not found in Scripture," but much of the rituals aren't contrary to Scripture.

Hans, you seem to take the position of the Puritans who purged themselves of much of the Roman Catholic "stuff", and I seem to take the position of the Lutherans and Anglicans who kept much of the Roman Catholic "stuff."

I'm "fighting" for the freedom - in non-essentials - to hold a position which respects practices that aren't clearly contrary to Scripture...and, mind you, I don't ask saints to intercede for me; I'm trying to defend those who do against those who might wish to limit their freedom...those who might wish to narrow what can properly be called orthopraxy.

After lots of discussions, it seems to me that the answer to the original question is: we don't know. We do know that Jesus and the Holy Spirit do (Romans 8:26-27, Romans 8:34).

Then came the question if it would be a good or bad thing to ask others in heaven to pray for or with us. (Now I am not clear on how asking that would be any different than praying to them. It seems to me that prayer is the way we communicate with God. I know of no other way to communicate with the heavenly realm, but that is perhaps not a crucial issue in the discussion).

There have been a lot of arguments on either side of the topic here, but we seem to agree that Scriptures are silent on this issue. I haven't heard anyone argue this is an essential either. Christians all through the ages have had different opinions on this topic, which, for all I know, has turned neither side of the discussion into heathens. So, despite strong convictions, perceived dangers and the like, it is an issue of thinking and letting think. Or agree to disagree.

Perhaps the most interesting but least developed part of the discussion is the question, what is prayer anyway?

That all seems pretty fair, Hans; thank you.

[Jamie Wayne]

I'm not a former Roman Catholic, but if memory serves me right, this was a critical issue in the Lutheran Reformation. There had developed a system in RC piety where full salvation was granted only when every sin had been forgiven. Forgiveness required repentance and penance. An Indulgence was essentially a token of forgiveness. One could by an indulgence that would assure one of a forgiven sin. A get out of jail free card of sorts.

Some of you who are better experts please correct me.

That sounds like a pretty fair simple explanation to me.

[Hans Deventer]

Hans, you seem to take the position of the Puritans who purged themselves of much of the Roman Catholic "stuff", and I seem to take the position of the Lutherans and Anglicans who kept much of the Roman Catholic "stuff."

Actually, (and let me say again, that this is my opinion), I'm not against High Church "stuff" at all. In fact, I have switched from supporting adult baptism to infant baptism in the recent years.

That I am pretty convinced on this specific issue, has two reasons:

it deals directly with the spiritual realm. And that, in my view, is an area where considerably more caution is needed then in forms or other (liturgical) traditions.
it seems to be at odds with the way I look at prayer (as said before, I align with Roland's posts here)


I'm not at all some staunch Protestant, rejecting anything Roman Catholic as the ultimate heresy by definition. I've been reading Roman Catholics as Brennan Manning and Henri Nouwen with great respect. Probably need to dive into Thomas Merton's books as well.
Right now I am reading Abraham Herschel's "God In Search Of Man". A Jewish theology. And there is a lot of good stuff in there.
I don't think narrow mindedness is much of a problem. But that does not mean that I have no convictions. I do stand for what I believe is right.

That seems to me to be the very heart of Wesley's "Catholic Spirit".

[Jamie Wayne]

Sometimes, Hans, in standing up for what we believe is right, we are declaring that what someone else believes is wrong...and that's what I objected to in this conversation. In essentials, there's not much room (if any), but in non-essentials, I would like to allow more liberty rather than less.

[Hans Deventer]

Sometimes, Hans, in standing up for what we believe is right, we are declaring that what someone else believes is wrong...

True, very true. Even if not explicitly, it would be so by implication. But that can't always be avoided, unless by taking no stand at all. How would you deal with something like this?

So I have been saying that I believe asking the departed saints to pray for us is wrong. I'm not saying it is an essential, I'm not not saying you can't be a Christian if you believe it would be good. But I honestly do believe it is wrong.

How else to state my honest opinion?

[Billie Goodson]

True, very true. Even if not explicitly, it would be so by implication. But that can't always be avoided, unless by taking no stand at all. How would you deal with something like this?

So I have been saying that I believe asking the departed saints to pray for us is wrong. I'm not saying it is an essential, I'm not not saying you can't be a Christian if you believe it would be good. But I honestly do believe it is wrong.

How else to state my honest opinion?

When I read the words of your statement, here is I filter/interpret it:

"But I honestly do believe it is wrong, and that you should not do it."

The "and you should not do it" is purely my add, but, it is how I interpret it. All of my life, the only time someone told me something was wrong, they intended that I should not do it. This could be a "me-ism." Why else point something out as wrong?

[Randy Wise]

I see nothing in scripture that states individual saints can hear my requests let alone even know me. The context of rev 5:8 is prayers being offered to God in the timing Jesus takes the scroll. What does that scroll deal with? Judgement not intercession. Hans keeps wondering when God will put a end to the suffering. Rev 5:8 suggests God has been saving those prayers for the offering shown in rev 5:8 - as perhaps God is stating offer them up now there will be no more delay.

Randy

[Terri Knoll]

I see nothing in scripture that states individual saints can hear my requests let alone even know me. The context of rev 5:8 is prayers being offered to God in the timing Jesus takes the scroll. What does that scroll deal with? Judgement not intercession. Hans keeps wondering when God will put a end to the suffering. Rev 5:8 suggests God has been saving those prayers for the offering shown in rev 5:8 - as perhaps God is stating offer them up now there will be no more delay.

Randy

would you quote scripture that denies saints can hear my requests? I am neither here nor there on the issue, but someone close to me asked. so I am asking..Naznet is the ask.com for theological stuff :rolleyes:

thanx in advance

[Janet Mercer]

Jamie, I have no idea how you would define relationship, nor what possible value faith is in heaven. Grace is a dynamic process of transformation for us here, I have no idea how that plays out in heaven but it is definitely different from what we receive here. And no I have no relationship with Brad in heaven. I have memories of him here that are dear to me and I will walk with him again but there is absolutely nothing, beyond the most vague warm fuzzies, of value in the idea that somehow there is relationship between those that are here and those that are gone on. I do not think Brad has wasted a second of eternity interceding for me, he was about to and then saw that Jesus had that covered.
If I were the "departed"....I love quotations, I would somehow feel like Heaven was less than I expect it to be if I still feel the need to intercede or pray for those I left behind. When I pray now, it is not just because I care about this person, but because that care or love makes me worry about their wellbeing. If I haven't left the worries of my physical life behind then going to heaven isn't quite all it was cracked up to be.

[Mike Wooldridge]

A couple of last things.
First, if my late wife Mary and other "dearly departed" can hear my prayers, the last thing I want to be doing is bothering them because I messed up. I can just hear Mary saying, "I can't believe you, Wooldridge!" For me, it's easier to ask my "big Brother," Jesus. Mary is enjoying Heaven and it's not her "job" to intercede for me.
Second, the big difference Jesus and "saints" as intercessor is that Jesus is both fully human and fully Divine. That makes Jesus uniquely qualified to serve as Intercessor.

[Randy Wise]

would you quote scripture that denies saints can hear my requests? I am neither here nor there on the issue, but someone close to me asked. so I am asking..Naznet is the ask.com for theological stuff :rolleyes:

thanx in advance


I see nothing in scripture that states individual saints can hear my requests let alone even know me

I don't find a theme for asking the departed to pray for the living. Unless they have God like abilities the departed can't know me or my thoughts or my words from heaven.
Randy