Questions on Intercession of the Saints

[Berserk]

I have often tried praying for intercession from Mary and other saints and the experience leaves me frustrated and empty.
But I'm not a debunker; I'd love to believe they hear my prayers and intercede for me. I guess I just need some sort of verifcation experience.

 

[IceJad]

I have often tried praying for intercession from Mary and other saints and the experience leaves me frustrated and empty.
But I'm not a debunker; I'd love to believe they hear my prayers and intercede for me. I guess I just need some sort of verifcation experience.

Curious, I would believe that a Methodist wouldn't pray for saintly intercession. John Wesley isn't too fond of such practise. At least according to him while the practise is a fondly thing, it has no basis in Scripture.

From what I can gather from the responses here (those that do so) is that pray to saints are akin to a group prayer. That we are in one body along with the angels in praying to God.

Whether we pray with/without intercession of the saints, I personally don't think we can expect a verified experience. God answers prayers according to His Will and Grace. All we can do is have faith that our prayers are heard and the Lord will move accordingly.

 

[FireDragon76]

Curious, I would believe that a Methodist wouldn't pray for saintly intercession. John Wesley isn't too fond of such practise. At least according to him while the practise is a fondly thing, it has no basis in Scripture.

Keep in mind Wesley lived at a time when advocating for Catholicism (or any practices deemed too "Catholic) in England could bring severe penalties.

Churches in England in Wesley's time often didn't even handle candlesticks on the altar (if they had an altar at all), priests had controversies about wearing the most minimal of vestments, and communion was often just once a year. The Catholic Revival had yet to happen in the Church of England, spurred by the rise of the Romantic movement and increased scholarship on early Christianity (such as discovery of the Didache).

 

[Ceallaigh]

What I know for 100% certain is that our Lord Jesus Christ gave us several instructions on prayer, and in every single instance, prayer was to directed to Father God exclusively. The only mention of incession given by Jesus was asking things of the Father in His name (John 14:13).

Paul also tells us that God the Holy Spirit intercedes in our prayers to the Father (Romans 8:26).

 

[IceJad]

What I know for 100% certain is that our Lord Jesus Christ gave us several instructions on prayer, and in every single instance, prayer was to directed to Father God exclusively. The only mention of incession given by Jesus was asking things of the Father in His name (John 14:13).

Paul also tells us that God the Holy Spirit intercedes in our prayers to the Father (Romans 8:26).

My believe as well. A direct relationship has been established when our Lord Jesus fulfilled His mission to redeem us unto Himself. No longer there is a need to sacrifice or intercession by the temple priest. Our Lord Jesus is all that in one.

However I'm just trying to understand the concept of intercession of the saints. What are the core values and basis in Scriptures.

 

[FireDragon76]

My believe as well. A direct relationship has been established when our Lord Jesus fulfilled His mission to redeem us unto Himself. No longer there is a need to sacrifice or intercession by the temple priest. Our Lord Jesus is all that in one.

However I'm just trying to understand the concept of intercession of the saints. What are the core values and basis in Scriptures.

The Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura didn't exist for 1500 years. Christians in earlier times had different religious epistemologies, as is indeed the case for the majority of the world's Christians today (Protestantism is a minority group among the global Christian community, representing about a third of Christians, the rest of whom all consider religious tradition important).

 

[IceJad]

The Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura didn't exist for 1500 years. Christians in earlier times had different religious epistemologies, as is indeed the case for the majority of the world's Christians today (Protestantism is a minority group among the global Christian community, representing about a third of Christians, the rest of whom all consider religious tradition important).

Sola Scriptura didn't exist as a concept but it doesn't mean there is no precedence for it. All religious traditions and rites still reference back to some Scriptural passage. Whether the passages use are primary teachings is the question. Not all passages can be considered core teachings. If traditions are built upon non primary passages then there is a case to review such traditions.

In later ages the more traditionalist Churches have move closer to Protestantism teachings such as saved by grace. Traditions while nice are not always right. Traditions can be built up by repetition of a single exceptional instance of non-conformity suited only for a unique case. While it is not wrong for that instance doesn't make it generally acceptable in all cases.

Example like how Joshua commanded the sun and moon and the Lord listened. One instance for a specific case. If the Israelites wanted they could make commanding the sun and moon a tradition. Remember even the Old Testaments are written long after the passing of their events.

Joshua 10:14
There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the LORD listened to a human being. Surely the LORD was fighting for Israel!

Some traditions like the Passover are still observed by the Jews. It is written in the Old Testaments that they should continue the tradition to pass down what the Lord has done for their people. A tradition commanded by the Lord with a primary passage. There is no need for interpretation or any reading between the lines.

Exodus 12:14
“This is a day you are to commemorate; for the generations to come you shall celebrate it as a festival to the Lord—a lasting ordinance.

 

[Ceallaigh]

My believe as well. A direct relationship has been established when our Lord Jesus fulfilled His mission to redeem us unto Himself. No longer there is a need to sacrifice or intercession by the temple priest. Our Lord Jesus is all that in one.

However I'm just trying to understand the concept of intercession of the saints. What are the core values and basis in Scriptures.

Basis in Scripture is what I was addressing. It's not there. Not even a hint of it. Unless one wants to appeal to a passage in 2 Maccabees 15 where someone has a vision of Jeremiah in heaven. Then there's Samuel's ghost rising from the dead to talk to Saul in 1 Samuel 28, but that was through witchcraft, not prayer. Matthew 22:32 is also brought up, but it doesn't have anything to do with prayer.

Now in this instance I'm not arguing against intercession of the Saints. I'm just pointing out that the practice is not found anywhere Scripture. So one has to look elsewhere regarding its origins.

 

[FireDragon76]

Sola Scriptura didn't exist as a concept but it doesn't mean there is no precedence for it. All religious traditions and rites still reference back to some Scriptural passage.

Not necessarily. Traditional church architecture, the notion of using a cross as a symbol for Christians, even the amount of water to use in baptism, all of those are extrabiblical and rest on a tradition of some kind.

 

[Valletta]

Sola Scriptura didn't exist as a concept but it doesn't mean there is no precedence for it. All religious traditions and rites still reference back to some Scriptural passage. Whether the passages use are primary teachings is the question.

It apparently caught on when two Christians were quite taken by an Arab theologian who preached that the Quran was the ultimate and sole authority. They applied it to the Bible.

 

[Ceallaigh]

It apparently caught on when two Christians were quite taken by an Arab theologian who preached that the Quran was the ultimate and sole authority. They applied it to the Bible.

Is there any citation for that? It sounds like something that was made up to discourage appealing to the authority of scripture.

 

[Valletta]

Is there any citation for that? It sounds like something that was made up to discourage appealing to the authority of scripture.

Holy Scripture is the Word of God, but Holy Scripture itself does not claim sole authority nor did Christ's Church ever cede over such authority. That is by far the biggest refutation of Sola Scriptura. The two Christians were William of Ockham and Marsilius of Padua.

 

[IceJad]

Holy Scripture is the Word of God, but Holy Scripture itself does not claim sole authority nor did Christ's Church ever cede over such authority. That is by far the biggest refutation of Sola Scriptura. The two Christians were William of Ockham and Marsilius of Padua.

The problem with a lot of proponents of traditions is the lack on clear origin. If a question is asked about the origin many can't answer and those that can answer give differing ones. How can one verify the theological authenticity of such traditions if there is no written form? Why people put Scriptures so highly as a source of Truth is because of its permanence.

Like how the Lord's prayer has formed the basis of a lot of our prayers. I'm quite sure there are other forms and format of unrecorded prayers. However without any recording of such rites how sure can anyone be when it is questioned thousands of years later? Even in the time of Jesus this problem exists.

When Jesus met a Samaritan woman by the well remember what she told the Lord? Our ancestors prayed in this mountain yet the Jew claim we must worship in Jerusalem. Were the Jews wrong as their religious traditions dictate or were the Samaritans wrong for continuing to worship in the mountain? The Jews and Samaritans were the decedents of the same line (Jacob's) from a same root religious believe. Ultimately we get a recorded answer to clear things up. Lord Jesus said neither for we will all worship the Father in spirit and truth. The traditions mattered no longer. No sacred mounts or ornate temples.

What I fear most one day is that traditions will overtake proper understanding of core religious believes. Adding on to what is central just to beautify the faith but ultimately unnecessary or at worst contradictory.

 

[Valletta]

The problem with a lot of proponents of traditions is the lack on clear origin. If a question is asked about the origin many can't answer and those that can answer give differing ones. How can one verify the theological authenticity of such traditions if there is no written form? Why people put Scriptures so highly as a source of Truth is because of its permanence.

Like how the Lord's prayer has formed the basis of a lot of our prayers. I'm quite sure there are other forms and format of unrecorded prayers. However without any recording of such rites how sure can anyone be when it is questioned thousands of years later? Even in the time of Jesus this problem exists.

When Jesus met a Samaritan woman by the well remember what she told the Lord? Our ancestors prayed in this mountain yet the Jew claim we must worship in Jerusalem. Were the Jews wrong as their religious traditions dictate or were the Samaritans wrong for continuing to worship in the mountain? The Jews and Samaritans were the decedents of the same line (Jacob's) from a same root religious believe. Ultimately we get a recorded answer to clear things up. Lord Jesus said neither for we will all worship the Father in spirit and truth. The traditions mattered no longer. No sacred mounts or ornate temples.

What I fear most one day is that traditions will overtake proper understanding of core religious believes. Adding on to what is central just to beautify the faith but ultimately unnecessary or at worst contradictory.

I have never encountered a proponent of all traditions. Some traditions are good, some are bad, some are neither here nor there. We know the origins of some traditions, others we do not. An example we know of is the tradition of the order of books of the Bible. Both Catholics and Protestants use the same order. The Catholics established the order back in the 300s. A common tradition is to put a cross on the top of a church building. I don't know whether the first Catholic church buildings in the 400s had the crosses or not. I have no problem with such traditions, in fact I think they are good. A lot of Protestants tack on a Catholic prayer that is not part of the Bible after saying the "Our Father." Nothing wrong with that.

 

[IceJad]

Not necessarily. Traditional church architecture, the notion of using a cross as a symbol for Christians, even the amount of water to use in baptism, all of those are extrabiblical and rest on a tradition of some kind.

Not all traditions are bad. Some came about due to a need such as a church building. Early Christians were doing in private homes. For baptism there is no specific steps or procedures proscribed yet the basis is one must undergo it once. Water poured on the head or dunking the whole body in water are merely physical manifestation of a symbolic teaching. Not much contention is to be had for the Bible has put no restrictions on such.

Prayer on the other hand has a lot of passages written about it. There is the Lord's prayer where all communication are focused on the Father. Then there is prayer where we are told to ask in our Lord's name. It doesn't leave a lot of free expression for it.

So for all intense and purpose, I want to understand the origin and nature of saintly intercession. How important it is. How much precedence there is. Traditions can be a beautiful thing and it can also be a stumbling block when incorrectly understood.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Holy Scripture is the Word of God, but Holy Scripture itself does not claim sole authority nor did Christ's Church ever cede over such authority.

What on earth contains more authority than the words of God? And how on earth could the words of God not claim soul authority in being the words of God? And I mean the actual words of God spoken to Moses and the prophets etc, and the words spoken by Christ. Has there ever been a bishop who had more authority than Peter, John and Paul? Are not the words of God, Jesus and the Apostles the foremost authoritative words of the Church of Christ?

That is by far the biggest refutation of Sola Scriptura. The two Christians were William of Ockham and Marsilius of Padua.

Is there an article that states sola scriptura was a result of them mimicking Islam? I'd say when it comes to sola scriptura, the question is how did God want the Levitical priesthood to operate? Did God want them to follow the Torah He dictated to Moses? And did Jesus rebuke the priesthood for following the torah, or for making up their own traditions?

 

[Valletta]

Not all traditions are bad. Some came about due to a need such as a church building. Early Christians were doing in private homes. For baptism there is no specific steps or procedures proscribed yet the basis is one must undergo it once. Water poured on the head or dunking the whole body in water are merely physical manifestation of a symbolic teaching. Not much contention is to be had for the Bible has put no restrictions on such.

Prayer on the other hand has a lot of passages written about it. There is the Lord's prayer where all communication are focused on the Father. Then there is prayer where we are told to ask in our Lord's name. It doesn't leave a lot of free expression for it.

So for all intense and purpose, I want to understand the origin and nature of saintly intercession. How important it is. How much precedence there is. Traditions can be a beautiful thing and it can also be a stumbling block when incorrectly understood.

We have a Creed, in which is mentioned the communion of saints. One very literal meaning is that the Church, the Body of Christ, includes Christ and the saints in Heaven. Catholics believe that those in Heaven are alive, not dead. The Word of God tells us to pray for one another. Thus we ask those in Heaven to pray for us, just like we ask those on earth to pray for us. As to Baptism, the Bible tells us we are saved through Baptism:

1 Peter 3:20-21 who formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. RSVCE

 

[Valletta]

What on earth contains more authority than the words of God? And how on earth could the words of God not claim soul authority in being the words of God? And I mean the actual words of God spoken to Moses and the prophets etc, and the words spoken by Christ. Has there ever been a bishop who had more authority than Peter, John and Paul? Are not the words of God, Jesus and the Apostles the foremost authoritative words of the Church of Christ?

Is there an article that states sola scriptura was a result of them mimicking Islam? I'd say when it comes to sola scriptura, the question is how did God want the Levitical priesthood to operate? Did God want them to follow the Torah He dictated to Moses? And did Jesus rebuke the priesthood for following the torah, or for making up their own traditions?

God cannot be confined to a book, and is Himself the final authority rather than even His Word. The two I mentioned followed an Arab theologian, who taught the Quran was the authority, and became great advocates of Sola Scriptura. I know it's not going to be accepted by those who promote Sola Scriptura, thus the word "apparently." Priests today are of the order of Melchizedek. Recall Melchizedek offered mere bread and wine. Our Lord offers His Body and His Blood under the outward appearance of bread and wine. Priests under the New Covenant, the Covenant which is the Body and Blood of Our Lord, are priests of the order of Melchizedek. The new fulfills the old.

Psalm 110:4
4 The Lord has sworn
and will not change his mind,
“You are a priest for ever
after the order of Melchiz′edek.” RSVCE

 

[IceJad]

We have a Creed, in which is mentioned the communion of saints. One very literal meaning is that the Church, the Body of Christ, includes Christ and the saints in Heaven. Catholics believe that those in Heaven are alive, not dead. The Word of God tells us to pray for one another. Thus we ask those in Heaven to pray for us, just like we ask those on earth to pray for us. As to Baptism, the Bible tells us we are saved through Baptism:

1 Peter 3:20-21 who formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. RSVCE

The Lutherans creed is also quite similar to the Catholics since we are one of the closer Protestant denomination to Catholicism. But as I said in prior posts I'm not very denominational. I believe in the communion of saints as well. It's just that we don't put too much emphasis into requesting intercession from others in the heavenly body. It is more direct to our Lord Jesus as per His teachings. For group prayers we take into account those we can see.

I see your reasons and understood it more now. Where it comes from and from which Biblical source it is derived from. While I have no objection to it, I just believe in a more direct method of prayer to God. It has never sit quite well in me personally (I can always be wrong). However it's not a barrier for me to call people from other denominations brothers/sisters in Christ. So long we believe in the same core teachings:

1. God the Father, God the Son & God the Holy Spirit.
2. Jesus died for our sins and redeemed us unto Himself
3. Jesus was crucified and resurrected on the 3 day and ascended into heaven.
4. Jesus will come again to render final judgement.
5. We are born again when we accepted Christ.

Everything else is merely differences in understanding. So long the differences don't contradict the core teachings.

 

[Valletta]

The Lutherans creed is also quite similar to the Catholics since we are one of the closer Protestant denomination to Catholicism. But as I said in prior posts I'm not very denominational. I believe in the communion of saints as well. It's just that we don't put too much emphasis into requesting intercession from others in the heavenly body. It is more direct to our Lord Jesus as per His teachings. For group prayers we take into account those we can see.

I see your reasons and understood it more now. Where it comes from and from which Biblical source it is derived from. While I have no objection to it, I just believe in a more direct method of prayer to God. It has never sit quite well in me personally (I can always be wrong). However it's not a barrier for me to call people from other denominations brothers/sisters in Christ. So long we believe in the same core teachings:

1. God the Father, God the Son & God the Holy Spirit.
2. Jesus died for our sins and redeemed us unto Himself
3. Jesus was crucified and resurrected on the 3 day and ascended into heaven.
4. Jesus will come again to render final judgement.
5. We are born again when we accepted Christ.

Everything else is merely differences in understanding. So long the differences don't contradict the core teachings.

We too make great use of prayer directly to God. We also believe that all of our prayers are heard by God. So for us it is taking advantage of another avenue provided by God. We see Mary's role as a queen in the Davidic kingdom who like previous queens makes requests for others to the King.