Hebrews 12:1 is often cited in support of the practice of praying to the dead. I've written a lot about prayer to the dead over the years, but I haven't said much about Hebrews 12:1, as far as I recall.
We're often told to focus on what the passage says about a group of people surrounding those who are running in a race. That brings to mind something like an athletic event in a stadium. The audience in the Hebrews 12 context is the deceased believers of chapter 11, with the implication that they're observing those still alive on earth as the latter run their course through life.
We need to be careful, though, about proceeding with that stadium context in mind. It may not be what the author intended. It could be that the reference to being surrounded by the individuals in chapter 11 and the reference to running in a race (a common way of referring to living as a Christian and living in general) aren't meant to be thought of as different components of the same image. The reference to running may be a new image instead. Not only is it possible in the abstract to distinguish between being surrounded by a cloud of witnesses and running a race, but there's also the fact that the focus has been on the past behavior of those witnesses, not their currently observing those alive on earth. Putting the cloud of witnesses and the race together in a stadium context requires us to think of the witnesses in a different manner than how they've just been described.
Let's assume, though, that the author is thinking of the individuals of chapter 11 watching us run in a stadium. That still wouldn't have much to do with praying to the dead, for more than one reason.
For one thing, the individuals of chapter 11 can be thought of as observing us in the sense that they anticipated us. Hebrews 11 is largely about trusting God for the future. Chapter 11 ends, in verse 40, with a reference to how modern believers are needed to fulfill the promises those deceased individuals were focused on. In that sense, they observed us from the past, in anticipation (11:13), rather than currently observing us in the afterlife. Their fellow citizens in the city they anticipated (11:16) are part of the fulfillment they expected, and in that sense they observed us from the past. That sort of interpretation goes well with the focus on the past in chapter 11 and what the last verse of the chapter (just before 12:1) tells us.
For the sake of argument, though, let's grant that the deceased individuals are observing us from the afterlife. There still wouldn't be anything significant that can be derived from the passage about praying to the dead. We often refer to one individual or group observing another individual or group in life. Children watch, and therefore learn from and imitate, their parents. Scripture often tells us to observe the lives of individuals like Paul (Philippians 3:17), that unbelievers are observing the lives of believers (1 Peter 4:4), etc. It doesn't follow that every member of every group doing the observing has exhaustive knowledge of the life of the individual or group being observed. Children don't have exhaustive knowledge of the lives of their parents. Those who were observing Paul didn't see every aspect of his life. And so on. All that Hebrews 12:1 would require under the interpretation being considered here is that some of the deceased have some knowledge of the lives of believers on earth, that all of the deceased know some of what's happening, or some other scenario along those lines. That kind of interpretation of Hebrews 12 wouldn't lead us to the conclusion that we should expect every deceased believer, every Roman Catholic Saint, or some other such group to be observing the entirety of our lives or hear any prayer a believer on earth directs to one of the deceased individuals in question.
It's commonly acknowledged that Samuel had some knowledge of events on earth in 1 Samuel 28, that Moses and Elijah had some knowledge of events on earth in the context of the Mount of Transfiguration, that the martyrs in heaven in Revelation 6:9-11 have some knowledge of events on earth, etc. I've argued for the existence of ghosts elsewhere, and they provide us with further examples of the deceased having some knowledge of events on earth.
Let's take things further, though, for the sake of argument, and assume that every deceased believer has exhaustive knowledge of the life of every believer on earth and has the ability to hear and answer every prayer that could be offered in the relevant contexts. It still wouldn't make sense to pray to them, given factors like the prohibitions of attempting to contact the dead and the lack of the practice of praying to them in the Biblical and early patristic eras.
There's nothing in Hebrews 12:1 that significantly advances the argument for praying to the dead. Even if you grant much of what proponents of the practice allege about Hebrews 12, it doesn't follow that praying to the dead is justified.
"It still wouldn't make sense to pray to them, given factors like the prohibitions of attempting to contact the dead"
ReplyDeleteThat prohibition doesn't apply because Christ conquered death.
Today is the Leave Taking of Pascha. For the last 40 days, every day we've been singing, "Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life."
The death that entered the world by Adam's sin has been defeated. And so the state of those who die in Christ is fundamentally different than previously. They are actually alive (ie, I'm not even praying to the dead, I'm praying to people who are alive in Christ) and we are members of the same Church. Ergo, asking a saint to pray for me is no different than asking you to pray for me. This was not possible before what Christ did, thus the previous prohibition.
Simply put, the Resurrection had a lot of consequences and this is one of them.
As an aside, I came across an article when the lockdowns first hit and this reporter was interviewing various local clergy about the impact. She asked the Greek Orthodox priest what it was like to worship in an empty church and he replied, "But it's not empty! It's filled with saints and angels!"
chris,
DeleteYou're repeating bad arguments that we addressed years ago. If you go to the page I linked above, you'll find links to posts in which I address the issues you're raising. Not only is your line of reasoning a poor explanation of the evidence prior to Jesus' resurrection, but it also fails to address the relevant Biblical and patristic material after his resurrection. Even if there weren't so much evidence against your position, the fact that it's so speculative would be a problem. You can't just assume that Jesus' conquering of death has whatever results you want it to have. You need to demonstrate that the result in question has actually occurred. If I want to have conversations with certain deceased unbelievers, I can't claim that the fact that Jesus conquered death justifies my efforts to interact with them. When I don't like the fact that a Christian has been diagnosed with cancer, I can't claim that he won't die, since Jesus conquered death. If a plant dies, I shouldn't expect it to resurrect on the basis that death has been conquered by Jesus.
"Well, but 'with God nothing is impossible.' True enough; who can be ignorant of it?...For a barren woman to have a child against nature was no difficulty with God; nor was it for a virgin to conceive. Of course nothing is 'too hard for the Lord.' But if we choose to apply this principle so extravagantly and harshly in our capricious imaginations, we may then make out God to have done anything we please, on the ground that it was not impossible for Him to do it. We must not, however, because He is able to do all things suppose that He has actually done what He has not done. But we must inquire whether He has really done it. God could, if He had liked, have furnished man with wings to fly with, just as He gave wings to kites. We must not, however, run to the conclusion that He did this because He was able to do it." (Tertullian, Against Praxeas, 10)
"the state of those who die in Christ is fundamentally different than previously. They are actually alive (ie, I'm not even praying to the dead, I'm praying to people who are alive in Christ) and we are members of the same Church. Ergo, asking a saint to pray for me is no different than asking you to pray for me."
DeleteHi Chris,
1. I think a problem is you're equivocating in the sense of what it means to be "alive". Sure, deceased Christians are "alive" in the sense that their souls or spirits persist after physical death. However, deceased Christians are not "alive" in the sense that they no longer possess a physical body.
2. Of course, Jesus is physically alive, but how are deceased Christians physically alive like Jesus is? In other words, if what you say is true, then why isn't a "consequence" of Jesus' resurrection that all deceased Christians are likewise physically alive like Jesus is physically alive? That would be a closer parallel.
3. How can living Christians speak with deceased Christians in the same way living Christians can talk to other living Christians if they do not possess the physical media by which to communicate (e.g. the entire auditory system)?
4. At best, it seems like you're implying there's telepathic communication. After all, if I pray silently in my mind, and a deceased Christian can hear my prayer, then this seems akin to telepathy.
5. If what you say is true, then why aren't deceased Christians able to reply to us? Just like you and another living person might be able to go back and forth when speaking with one another?
hawk, I think the honest, if unsatisfying, answer to most of your questions is "we don't know." But then, other than "by the Holy Spirit" I don't know how the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, either. What I can say is that spiritual reality not being identical to our current physical reality doesn't make it any less real. Which is to say, you're framing questions that seem to assume that spiritual realities operate according to the same rules as our current physical reality and can be investigated similarly.
DeleteFor example, in that discussion on real presence, Lydia McGrew was arguing for something called "spiritual real presence." What I'm saying is that where I'm coming from, that's redundant. The spiritual isn't opposed to the real, because...it's just as real. We simply have a diminished understanding of reality.
So, sure, I wasn't totally accurate when I said asking a saint to pray for me is "no different" than asking Jason to pray for me. The saints don't talk back to me the way Jason can. But then, neither does God when I pray to Him.
Where it's "no different" was meant to contrast the state of the dead now vs prior to Christ descending into hades and conquering death. It was in direct response to the question of OT prohibition on contacting the dead. I was not intending nor, indeed, can I, try to explain the "how" of things which have not yet been revealed to us.
"You're repeating bad arguments that we addressed years ago. "
DeleteWith respect, I think there's a difference between a bad argument and an argument you simply disagree with.
"You can't just assume that Jesus' conquering of death has whatever results you want it to have."
I totally agree, Jason. But I'm not doing that, am I?
"If I want to have conversations with certain deceased unbelievers, I can't claim that the fact that Jesus conquered death justifies my efforts to interact with them."
I wasn't saying you could.
"When I don't like the fact that a Christian has been diagnosed with cancer, I can't claim that he won't die, since Jesus conquered death."
Of course you can't. Where did I say or even imply that you could? But you also know (I hope) that that death doesn't have the same meaning as it did prior to the Resurrection. I thought we at least would agree on that much. O death, where is thy sting, etc?
And your Tertullian quote doesn't apply because I wasn't making that argument. But I'm totally in agreement with what he says there. " we must inquire whether He has really done it. " Indeed, we must.
I did read your link and the comments you specifically refer to. As I responded to hawk, I think the problem here is y'all're opposing the spiritual to the physical. The spiritual is not considered really real, so to speak, and thus rules and laws governing the physical are wrongly applied to the spiritual. Viewing the Scriptures through that lens, sure, I see exactly how you get from A to B and I would come to the same conclusions myself.
chris wrote:
Delete"With respect, I think there's a difference between a bad argument and an argument you simply disagree with."
Yes, and your arguments are bad ones.
You wrote:
"But you also know (I hope) that that death doesn't have the same meaning as it did prior to the Resurrection. I thought we at least would agree on that much."
You need to explain what sort of meaning of death you have in mind and how it supposedly relates to the issues under consideration.
You wrote:
"And your Tertullian quote doesn't apply because I wasn't making that argument."
You have yet to demonstrate that. If you have a valid argument for praying to the dead on the basis of Jesus' conquering of death, you haven't produced it yet.
You wrote:
"As I responded to hawk, I think the problem here is y'all're opposing the spiritual to the physical. The spiritual is not considered really real, so to speak, and thus rules and laws governing the physical are wrongly applied to the spiritual."
No, that's not what I've argued in this thread or the previous ones I linked. Rather, I've provided evidence that the prohibitions of contacting the dead are about physical death rather than spiritual death, that it's unlikely that praying to the dead was a practice of the relevant historical figures, etc. You aren't interacting with any of that.
The usual standards of reasoning and evidence, such as the laws of logic, aren't physical. If you're dismissing them as physical, as opposed to spiritual, that's a bad argument. And it is an argument. So, if you're opposed to appeals to reason and evidence in contexts like the current one, you shouldn't be offering such appeals yourself. If you aren't opposed to such appeals, then what's your point? You're at least communicating poorly, and I suspect there's more than that going on. Your position on praying to the dead is wrong, you have no good argument for it, and you have no good counterargument to the arguments you've been given from the other side. Instead of reacting accordingly, you've decided to selectively make appeals to arguments that you think will make your side look better while dismissing the counterarguments as unspiritual.
OK, I will thank you for the interaction and leave it at that.
DeleteHi chris,
Delete1. I don't see how either Jason or I are "opposing the spiritual to the physical" where "rules and laws governing the physical are wrongly applied to the spiritual". That's not an assumption in Jason's responses inasmuch as Jason's responses primarily directed you toward the biblical material. And it's not an assumption in my response inasmuch as I never made the assumption that the physical and the spiritual are "opposed" to one another. In fact, I think what I've said assumes they're consistent with one another. Anyway, at the very least, I think you would have to demonstrate how I've done so rather than make the assertion that I've done so.
2. Bigger picture, I think I'm merely trying to follow the logic of your own arguments. You're completely free to explain how prayer to deceased Christians would logically work in whatever (physical, spiritual, other) categories you like. If anything, my main assumption is based on logic vs. illogic, not spiritual vs. physical.
3. If you say the answer to most my questions is ultimately "we don't know", then it seems to me you're retreating into mystery at best. If so, then it seems to me you'd have to make a case for why this retreat into mystery is a reasonable move to make rather than, say, your use of mystery being illogical, nonsensical, obfuscation, special pleading, or otherewise a defeater for your explanation of praying to deceased Christians.
4. You bring up transubstantiation. However, the very fact that transubstantiation is (in my view) biblically, theologically, and philosophically illogical would arguably be grounds for rejecting transubstantiation, not arguably grounds for accepting transubstantiation is something we can't understand but is nevertheless true. Analogously, since it seems you're using transubstantiation as an argument from analogy, then if prayer to deceased Christians is at significant enough odds with the Bible and reason, then why shouldn't this be grounds to reject prayer to deceased Christians?
5. Thanks for conceding that you weren't "totally accurate when I said asking a saint to pray for me is 'no different' than asking Jason to pray for me. The saints don't talk back to me the way Jason can."
6. When you say: "But then, neither does God when I pray to Him." However, the fact is that God can reply to someone in prayer if God wishes. In fact, we see God doing this throughout the Bible (e.g. Acts 10:9ff to pick an example after the resurrection). Yet I don't recall any instances in the Bible where someone is praying to a deceased Christian and the deceased Christian responds to them. Perhaps something like Saul summoning Samuel via the witch of Endor, but that was clearly verboten.
7. And: "Where it's "no different" was meant to contrast the state of the dead now vs prior to Christ descending into hades and conquering death. It was in direct response to the question of OT prohibition on contacting the dead. I was not intending nor, indeed, can I, try to explain the "how" of things which have not yet been revealed to us."
Right, I understood that, which is why I asked what I asked, but your response is "we don't know".
Jason, I can make one other comment. Dave Armstrong posted an interaction you and he had some time ago on this topic and I was interested to note the following:
Delete"If the people of Biblical times had practiced prayers to the deceased and angels, we would expect to see that practice reflected in the Biblical record. "
Which DA called "a fair point." I actually don't think it is. I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect *not* to see details of how the earliest Christians worshipped, if only because we do know (from St Justin Martyr? I don't recall exactly at the moment) that their understanding of the Eucharist and the resulting misunderstanding by non-Christians caused them to have to defend themselves against the charge of cannibalism. Why would we expect this marginalized (when not actually persecuted) little group to write down everything about their interior life?
What I do expect to see, which evangelicals tend to decry as innovation, is what we see when Christianity becomes legal in the 4th century and has more freedom of public expression. At that point, it's perfectly reasonable to expect to see development in church architecture, hymnography, iconography, etc, as well as more public discussions of piety that were previously kept private. I'm guessing you would likely see this as argument from absence of evidence, but the argument is about how we reasonably expect human beings to behave in a given situation. And I don't think we would expect to see much more than the bare basics in terms of literature prior to the 4th century.
hey hawk:
Delete“1. I don't see how either Jason or I are "opposing the spiritual to the physical" where "rules and laws governing the physical are wrongly applied to the spiritual".....”
You are correct that I did not demonstrate it. I merely threw out my opinion. Gimme a minute to think about it. If I can think of a way of expressing that I think will be constructive (as opposed to destructive, as my intent in participating on this forum is definitely not to poke at people), I will.
“2. Bigger picture, I think I'm merely trying to follow the logic of your own arguments. ...”
And I appreciate this about you, hawk...
“3. If you say the answer to most my questions is ultimately "we don't know", then it seems to me you're retreating into mystery at best….”
Oh, I’m not retreating into Mystery, I’m leading with it. And it’s a reasonable move to make because we’re talking about something that...not enough has been revealed in order to make additional statements on or answer more questions about (in the evidentiary fashion which you and Jason are approaching it). This is a characteristic feature of Orthodox theology.
“4. You bring up transubstantiation. ...”
Actually, I didn’t bring up transubstantiation. I don’t believe in transubstantiation for the same reason I can’t answer any more questions about how prayers to the saints work. We lead with Mystery there, too. The notion of trying to figure out how that happens seems almost absurd to us (not to sound mean to any Catholics reading). In the end, I think it’s perfectly reasonable and shouldn’t be at all controversial to say that there are some things we can’t explain, can’t reason out. So, we say, not to put it too glibly, that neither your reason nor Aquinas’ reason is up to the task of sorting things like this out.
“5. Thanks for conceding that you weren't "totally accurate when I said asking a saint to pray for me is 'no different' than asking Jason to pray for me. The saints don't talk back to me the way Jason can."”
Yeah, I didn’t anticipate that the conversation was going to go where it did, otherwise I would have made those initial remarks more clear.
“6. When you say: "But then, neither does God when I pray to Him." However, the fact is that God can reply to someone in prayer if God wishes. ....”
True, God can. So can saints. And have. And I don’t recall any instances, either, but I don’t think that’s a problem, for the reasons I just posted to Jason. You guys think it’s reasonable to see such examples and I don’t.
(cont to hawk):
Delete“7. Right, I understood that, which is why I asked what I asked, but your response is "we don't know".”
Indeed. Western theology also understands, even if implicitly, that there are limits to what human reason can comprehend and explain. You guys “retreat into Mystery” at certain points, as do Catholics. The difference is that Orthodox lead with it and don’t try to figure it out in the first place. Which isn’t meant to be a claim or a premise, just an observation as to why it’s hard to communicate with each other sometimes. Every time the fioloque comes up with a Catholic, for example, I cite the following as illustrative of the difference in approach:
For, tell me, what position will you assign to that which Proceeds, which has started up between the two terms of your division, and is introduced by a better Theologian than you, our Saviour Himself? Or perhaps you have taken that word out of your Gospels for the sake of your Third Testament, The Holy Ghost, which proceeds from the Father; Who, inasmuch as He proceeds from That Source, is no Creature; and inasmuch as He is not Begotten is no Son; and inasmuch as He is between the Unbegotten and the Begotten is God. And thus escaping the toils of your syllogisms, He has manifested himself as God, stronger than your divisions. What then is Procession? Do you tell me what is the Unbegottenness of the Father, and I will explain to you the physiology of the Generation of the Son and the Procession of the Spirit, and we shall both of us be frenzy-stricken for prying into the mystery of God. And who are we to do these things, we who cannot even see what lies at our feet, or number the sand of the sea, or the drops of rain, or the days of Eternity, much less enter into the Depths of God, and supply an account of that Nature which is so unspeakable and transcending all words?
St Gregory the Theologian’s 5th Theological Oration
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310231.htm
Thanks, chris. I'll just focus on a few points if that's okay:
Delete"Oh, I’m not retreating into Mystery, I’m leading with it. And it’s a reasonable move to make because we’re talking about something that...not enough has been revealed in order to make additional statements on or answer more questions about (in the evidentiary fashion which you and Jason are approaching it). This is a characteristic feature of Orthodox theology...Indeed. Western theology also understands, even if implicitly, that there are limits to what human reason can comprehend and explain. You guys “retreat into Mystery” at certain points, as do Catholics. The difference is that Orthodox lead with it and don’t try to figure it out in the first place."
Nevertheless, even if you "lead" with mystery, you can't simply say it's mysterious and leave it at that. There needs to be more to your argument.
In other words, it seems to me you think your response is more akin to (say) the mysteries in the Trinity. That is, I'm sure we can agree there are certain mysteries to the Trinity which no human can ever grasp inasmuch as we're finite creatures trying to understand God himself. However, that doesn't mean the Trinity is illogical or inconsistent. That doesn't mean humans can't have a limited true understanding of the Trinity even if we can't understand everything about the Trinity. We can still grasp true things about the Trinity.
However, I don't see your response about prayer to deceased Christians being a "mystery" as akin to the Trinity being mysterious. For one thing, the Trinity is a revealed truth in Scripture, but, as you yourself seem to imply, prayers to the deceased aren't revealed in Scripture. They're revealed later (after the 4th century?) in Christian history or tradition, right? So how do we even know they're true unless we happen to also accept Christian tradition, which Protestants don't necessarily do? The way you use "mystery" in arguing for praying to the deceased seems to be more akin to the "mystery" of a married bachelor. That is, suppose someone says there is such a thing as a married bachelor without any other detail or argument. On the face of it, that seems quite mistaken if not an outright contradiction. Yet, if pressed, suppose the person replies "it's a mystery!". That's hardly sufficient to explain how it's possible to have a married bachelor. That seems more like what you're arguing to me.
"True, God can."
Okay, but now it seems like you're reversing your opinion, because you originally claimed: "But then, neither does God when I pray to Him."
"So can saints. And have."
I guess we'd have to go through various cases throughout history to see if the best explanation for each is that a saint in heaven heard and answered. Anyway Triablogue has done plenty of past posts on, say, Marian apparitions, pagan answers to prayer, and the like, which are relevant to the question. And I have a credible source from an African Christian in which there may have even been a demonic answer to prayer.
"And I don’t recall any instances, either, but I don’t think that’s a problem, for the reasons I just posted to Jason. You guys think it’s reasonable to see such examples and I don’t."
Regarding what you said to Jason. We don't need to defer to historic Christian practices or tradition regarding the eucharist. We can cut to the chase by examining what Scripture itself teaches about the eucharist. I presume both Catholics and Orthodox would grant Scripture is at least on par with tradition. If so, then minimally one should properly exegete relevant passages on the eucharist (e.g. John 6:22ff, 1 Cor 5:7, 10:16, 11:23). Not to mention their philosophical and theological ramifications.
Anyway this is getting far afield from Jason's post which wasn't about the eucharist, but Heb 12:1 and prayers to the dead.
chris wrote:
Delete"I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect *not* to see details of how the earliest Christians worshipped, if only because we do know (from St Justin Martyr? I don't recall exactly at the moment) that their understanding of the Eucharist and the resulting misunderstanding by non-Christians caused them to have to defend themselves against the charge of cannibalism. Why would we expect this marginalized (when not actually persecuted) little group to write down everything about their interior life? What I do expect to see, which evangelicals tend to decry as innovation, is what we see when Christianity becomes legal in the 4th century and has more freedom of public expression. At that point, it's perfectly reasonable to expect to see development in church architecture, hymnography, iconography, etc, as well as more public discussions of piety that were previously kept private."
Citing cannibalism charges from the second century A.D. onward is insufficient, for more than one reason. For one thing, the Biblical era, which I was addressing in the comment you responded to, began long before the second century A.D. Secondly, the fact that the cannibalism charge arose and is so widely reflected in the historical record demonstrates that the charge and what the charge was based upon weren't prevented from leaving traces in the historical record.
We know a lot about the ante-Nicene era. We have thousands of pages of literature covering a large number and variety of topics from a large number and variety of sources, many archeological artifacts, etc. Since the early Christians consisted of so many people and people of such diverse backgrounds, personalities, theologies, etc., it would be unlikely that there would be a universal or even nearly universal desire to keep a practice like praying to the dead as concealed as you're suggesting. Even if there had been such a widespread desire, there wouldn't have been a means of fulfilling it. Many Jews, pagans, heretics, and schismatics observed what mainstream Christians believed and practiced and interacted with them and interacted with others about them accordingly. Professing Christians who committed apostasy wouldn't have continued working with their former fellow Christians in the sort of effort to conceal prayers to the dead that you're alleging. Rather, if the practice was considered problematic for Christians, that would have provided somebody like an apostate a motive for telling others about it. And people who remained Christians wouldn't have always been successful in concealing their practices, even if they'd wanted to. Tertullian encourages non-Christians to "examine our sacred books, which we do not keep in hiding, and which many accidents put into the hands of those who are not of us" (Apology, 31). Furthermore, neither ancient Christians nor ancient non-Christians would have anticipated the modern field of archeology or modern technology. They had no way of knowing how much we would be able to discover about them. If they'd wanted to conceal something like praying to the dead from their contemporaries and near-contemporaries (a highly unlikely scenario), that would have been a different matter than concealing it from distant generations with unknown knowledge, technology, and such.
A good illustration of some of the factors involved here is Origen's treatise Against Celsus. Ambrose, Origen's patron, asked him to respond to Celsus on every point (Against Celsus, Preface, 3), something Origen thought unnecessary, but said he would do anyway (Preface, 3; 2:20; 2:46; 4:6; 8:76). He doesn't respond to everything in Celsus' treatise. There are places where he refers to passing by something Celsus wrote because it's too repetitious, for example. But given how much Ambrose wanted Origen to respond to and how much he said he would interact with, even where he'd prefer not to, it's unlikely that he left much out. Where Origen does interact with Celsus' material, he sometimes acknowledges that Celsus' objections are significant, doesn't have much of a response to what Celsus argued, etc. (e.g., 2:63) One of the topics Origen does address, repeatedly, is prayer. Celsus (who apparently consulted at least one Jewish source in his analysis of Christianity, so that his response to the religion reflects both Jewish and pagan views) criticized Christians for praying only to God, and Origen defended the Christian practice. That's an example of a context in which it would have been advantageous for Christians, like Ambrose and Origen, to bring up the practice of praying to the deceased rather than concealing it. And it's unreasonable to think they could have concealed it even if they'd wanted to, for reasons like the ones referred to earlier.
DeleteFurthermore, your appeal to the fourth century and beyond is insufficient, since some Christians continued to oppose praying to the dead within that timeframe. I gave some examples in the material I linked earlier.
brother hawk:
Delete“Thanks, chris. I'll just focus on a few points if that's okay:”
No problem whatsoever. I view this as a friendly conversation, not a debate, so whatever you feel like talking about is fine with me.
“In other words, it seems to me you think your response is more akin to (say) the mysteries in the Trinity…..”
I don’t disagree. What I was trying to say in my last post is that we simply disagree on when to stop and call Mystery. Do you not have any beliefs that aren’t explicitly mentioned in Scripture but which you nevertheless feel are basic on valid implications? I would be surprised if you don’t.
“However, I don't see your response about prayer to deceased Christians being a "mystery" as akin to the Trinity being mysterious. For one thing, the Trinity is a revealed truth in Scripture, but, as you yourself seem to imply, prayers to the deceased aren't revealed in Scripture.”
Agreed, it isn’t truth explicitly revealed in Scripture. But it is, as I originally stated, an implication of a truth revealed in Scripture.
“They're revealed later (after the 4th century?) in Christian history or tradition, right? So how do we even know they're true unless we happen to also accept Christian tradition, which Protestants don't necessarily do? “
Yes, that’s ultimately what it all boils down to.
“The way you use "mystery" in arguing for praying to the deceased seems to be more akin to the "mystery" of a married bachelor…..”
Except I didn’t invoke Mystery until you started asking all kinds of specific questions I say we don’t have answers to. I initially gave a straightforward premise with it’s implied conclusion. I also gave a response to your objections as to why we don’t see the practice mentioned in Scripture or the earliest post-Apostolic writings. ie, what we should “reasonably expect.”
“Okay, but now it seems like you're reversing your opinion, because you originally claimed: "But then, neither does God when I pray to Him."
I just said he doesn’t, I didn’t say he couldn’t.
“I guess we'd have to go through various cases throughout history to see if the best explanation for each is that a saint in heaven heard and answered. Anyway Triablogue has done plenty of past posts on, say, Marian apparitions, pagan answers to prayer, and the like, which are relevant to the question. And I have a credible source from an African Christian in which there may have even been a demonic answer to prayer.”
Not really. All the literature I’ve read on the topic (the Desert Fathers, the Philikalia, etc), advises one not to trust pretty much anything like this and to assume it is demonic. Basically, one should not seek out spiritual “experiences,” (ala the charismatics). But I’m not sure why we’re talking about this because none of it has anything to do with the specific premise/conclusion I presented. I said we can pray to saints now and why we can. That was all.
“Regarding what you said to Jason. We don't need to defer to historic Christian practices or tradition regarding the eucharist. We can cut to the chase by examining what Scripture itself teaches about the eucharist. I presume both Catholics and Orthodox would grant Scripture is at least on par with tradition. If so, then minimally one should properly exegete relevant passages on the eucharist (e.g. John 6:22ff, 1 Cor 5:7, 10:16, 11:23). Not to mention their philosophical and theological ramifications.
Anyway this is getting far afield from Jason's post which wasn't about the eucharist, but Heb 12:1 and prayers to the dead.”
Yes and no. I brought it up because it highlights the larger issue, that when we approach those Scriptures, we aren’t objective observers, so to speak. We bring various philosophical assumptions in that sometimes we may not even be aware of due to the culture we were raised in.
sorry: "Do you not have any beliefs that aren’t explicitly mentioned in Scripture but which you nevertheless feel are **based, not basic** on valid implications? I would be surprised if you don’t.
DeleteJason, I'm well aware of everything you cite. And yet I disagree with you. ;-) Apart from the fact that citing Origen is...problematic when it comes to proving what that period of the Christian Church thought then or what it should think now, I think my point is quite sufficient and still stands because in spite of all that we do have from the ante-Nicene period (and, yes, I actually have read most of it), it qualifies as a paucity of evidence compared to what we have starting in the 4th century. When the Church is well more free.
DeleteWhich isn't to say your points aren't clever. They are! And I don't mean that condescendingly. But it doesn't really matter, ultimately, because what I'm expressing is the consensus of the Church. And I think we both know that this argument isn't really about praying to saints.
“I don’t disagree. What I was trying to say in my last post is that we simply disagree on when to stop and call Mystery. Do you not have any beliefs that aren’t explicitly mentioned in Scripture but which you nevertheless feel are basic on valid implications? I would be surprised if you don’t.”
Delete1. It sounds like you’re assuming our differences over “mystery” are a difference of degree. But I argued they’re a difference in kind.
2. In any case, the actual debate of this post is over prayers to the dead. Not other beliefs. It’d be best to stick to the topic at hand as much as possible.
“Agreed, it isn’t truth explicitly revealed in Scripture. But it is, as I originally stated, an implication of a truth revealed in Scripture. “
You’ll have to spell out the argument then.
“Except I didn’t invoke Mystery until you started asking all kinds of specific questions I say we don’t have answers to. I initially gave a straightforward premise with it’s implied conclusion. I also gave a response to your objections as to why we don’t see the practice mentioned in Scripture or the earliest post-Apostolic writings. ie, what we should “reasonably expect.””
1. Well, I responded to each of these.
2. Also, your responses still don’t amount to much of a direct case for prayers to the deceased. You yourself admitted as much when you said you needed time to think about it.
3. At best, what I see is you’re trying to pivot away from a biblical case and toward church tradition to argue for prayers to the deceased, but as I pointed out that’s hardly a given when debating a Protestant. Of course both of us would need to argue for our side, but the Protestant side has been argued for countless times on Triablogue.
“Not really. All the literature I’ve read on the topic (the Desert Fathers, the Philikalia, etc), advises one not to trust pretty much anything like this and to assume it is demonic. Basically, one should not seek out spiritual “experiences,” (ala the charismatics). But I’m not sure why we’re talking about this because none of it has anything to do with the specific premise/conclusion I presented. I said we can pray to saints now and why we can. That was all.”
We’re talking about this because you said the deceased saints have answered prayers. My point was how do we know the saints are the ones answering prayers unless we go through various cases. We have to judge each case on its own merits or demerits.
Not to mention you seem to agree demons can appear to answer prayers. After all, the devil can disguise himself as an angel of light, so perhaps in some or many cases, the alleged answers to prayers from deceased saints aren’t from saints, but from malicious spiritual entities like demons or fallen angels or ghosts masquerading as saints.
“Yes and no. I brought it up because it highlights the larger issue, that when we approach those Scriptures, we aren’t objective observers, so to speak. We bring various philosophical assumptions in that sometimes we may not even be aware of due to the culture we were raised in.”
Sure, but importing our own philosophical assumptions or cultural prejudices into a debate or discussion doesn’t imply we can’t ever be objective observers. Or that there can’t be an objective standard, which a Protestant would argue is Scripture.
Scripture itself can correct our biases.
DeleteYou can search Triablogue for what we say about Scripture and tradition if you want our perspective.
I hope I'm not annoying you, hawk, because I'm actually really enjoying our conversation....
Delete“I don’t disagree. What I was trying to say in my last post is that we simply disagree on when to stop and call Mystery. Do you not have any beliefs that aren’t explicitly mentioned in Scripture but which you nevertheless feel are basic on valid implications? I would be surprised if you don’t.”
1. It sounds like you’re assuming our differences over “mystery” are a difference of degree. But I argued they’re a difference in kind.
I think that’s an accurate assessment of where we’re at.
“Agreed, it isn’t truth explicitly revealed in Scripture. But it is, as I originally stated, an implication of a truth revealed in Scripture. “
You’ll have to spell out the argument then.”
I already have. That praying to saints doesn’t not violate the OT prohibition is a valid implied conclusion from the revealed truth that Christ has conquered death.
“2. Also, your responses still don’t amount to much of a direct case for prayers to the deceased. You yourself admitted as much when you said you needed time to think about it.”
Yes and no. Yes, because “the case” for praying to saints is (and, since you guys want standards of reason and evidence, I’m going to start using specific academic terms of argument) an implied conclusion of the premise that Christ has conquered death. No, because what I was saying I needed time to think about was whether I have the mental energy to write more about the west’s category errors on spirituality v reality.
“3. At best, what I see is you’re trying to pivot away from a biblical case and toward church tradition to argue for prayers to the deceased, but as I pointed out that’s hardly a given when debating a Protestant. Of course both of us would need to argue for our side, but the Protestant side has been argued for countless times on Triablogue.”
True, and why I think the best we can hope for here is polite conversation. Our epistemologies are different, that is a given. Which is why I brought up larger issues. We’re not really arguing about praying to saints, but how we approach the knowledge of the faith generally.
“We’re talking about this because you said the deceased saints have answered prayers. My point was how do we know the saints are the ones answering prayers unless we go through various cases. We have to judge each case on its own merits or demerits.”
We don’t need to judge each case in order to agree or disagree on a concept. Christ’s resurrection either affects the OT proscription or it doesn’t.
“Sure, but importing our own philosophical assumptions or cultural prejudices into a debate or discussion doesn’t imply we can’t ever be objective observers. Or that there can’t be an objective standard, which a Protestant would argue is Scripture.”
I’m not implying it, I’m stating it explicitly: we can’t ever be objective observers. You can argue that Scripture is an objective standard and then I’m going to argue, roughly, that whatever each of us thinks about a matter is based on what we’ve assented to receive about Scripture. Meaning, to say that “Scripture is the objective standard” isn’t at all helpful because it says nothing about what the Scriptures actually mean. And that’s all the discussions are, basically, disagreements about what Scripture explicitly means or implies.
"Scripture itself can correct our biases.
DeleteYou can search Triablogue for what we say about Scripture and tradition if you want our perspective."
I disagree fundamentally with your premise, as I allude to in what I just posted. Also, I was raised with exactly your perspective so I'm able to converse about it without misrepresenting it.
Clarification: I disagree fundamentally when it comes to sorting out topics like we're discussing here. That being said, Scripture regularly corrects my biases about how to perceive my own life. eg, reading Jeremiah and realizing, "ugh, I'm no different than Israel" or various things that come up when I'm praying with the Psalter. So, in that sense, yes, Scripture corrects me daily, if I'm willing to listen.
Deletechris wrote:
Delete"Jason, I'm well aware of everything you cite."
Now that you've read my posts.
You wrote:
"Apart from the fact that citing Origen is...problematic when it comes to proving what that period of the Christian Church thought then or what it should think now"
The principles I addressed are relevant to far more than Origen, and even my Origen example involved other figures (Ambrose, Celsus, etc.). Regarding Origen's significance in ancient Christianity, see here. The ancient controversies surrounding Origen weren't centered around his rejection of praying to the dead. The fact that he was criticized in one context doesn't change the fact that his beliefs in another context seem to have been within the mainstream of Christianity.
You wrote:
"in spite of all that we do have from the ante-Nicene period (and, yes, I actually have read most of it), it qualifies as a paucity of evidence compared to what we have starting in the 4th century."
What matters most in this context is whether there's enough known about the ante-Nicene era to give us the information we're after, not how the amount we know about the ante-Nicene era compares to the amount we know about another era of history. We know much less about the later patristic centuries of Christianity than we know about modern history. We don't therefore refer to having a "paucity" of information on those later centuries of patristic Christianity. And we don't appeal to ridiculous hypotheses about those later patristic Christians concealing their beliefs.
You wrote:
"But it doesn't really matter, ultimately, because what I'm expressing is the consensus of the Church."
It's such a consensus that you have to try to come up with a way to dismiss the relevance of hundreds of years of evidence pertaining to church history, speculate that the consensus you're appealing to was being concealed, and ignore the problems with your consensus assertion in other eras of history.
chris wrote:
Delete"That praying to saints doesn’t not violate the OT prohibition is a valid implied conclusion from the revealed truth that Christ has conquered death."
What you need to explain is how Christ's conquering of death supposedly implies your conclusion. You haven't done that.
“I hope I'm not annoying you, hawk, because I'm actually really enjoying our conversation....”
DeleteAdmittedly it’s becoming tedious for me since I don’t think you’re addressing the fundamental issues, despite my attempts to steer us back, but instead you’re all over the place. I’ll try again to refocus the debate or discussion.
“I already have. That praying to saints doesn’t not violate the OT prohibition is a valid implied conclusion from the revealed truth that Christ has conquered death.“
On the contrary, this statement is just a statement. Where’s the argument? Not even an exegetical case? It falls prey to Jason and my very first responses to you.
“Yes and no. Yes, because “the case” for praying to saints is (and, since you guys want standards of reason and evidence, I’m going to start using specific academic terms of argument) an implied conclusion of the premise that Christ has conquered death.”
You keep repeating this like it’s a mantra, but where’s the argument for it? I don’t see any such implication about praying to the dead from Christ’s resurrection conquering death. And it doesn’t address any of the questions I initially asked.
“We don’t need to judge each case in order to agree or disagree on a concept. Christ’s resurrection either affects the OT proscription or it doesn’t.”
It doesn’t. See how easy it is to make assertions! But seriously, why think Christ’s resurrection implies it’s now biblically licit to actively contact the dead? If, however, it is now biblically licit to contact the dead, then why limit contact only via prayer? Why not likewise use seances or mediums or other avenues to contact the dead if it’s now biblically licit to contact the dead?
“I’m not implying it, I’m stating it explicitly: we can’t ever be objective observers. You can argue that Scripture is an objective standard and then I’m going to argue, roughly, that whatever each of us thinks about a matter is based on what we’ve assented to receive about Scripture. Meaning, to say that “Scripture is the objective standard” isn’t at all helpful because it says nothing about what the Scriptures actually mean. And that’s all the discussions are, basically, disagreements about what Scripture explicitly means or implies.”
Speaking of Scripture, you have yet to make an exegetical case for prayer to the deceased regarding how Christ’s resurrection somehow cancels the OT prohibition against contacting the deceased.
“I disagree fundamentally with your premise, as I allude to in what I just posted. Also, I was raised with exactly your perspective so I'm able to converse about it without misrepresenting it.“
Well, that cuts both ways, inasmuch as I was raised with your perspective on Scripture and tradition, so I guess that makes me able to converse about it without misrepresenting it, too. Yet we apparently have come to diametrically opposed conclusions! Ironic.
Jason I'm going to snag something steve just said (much to his chagrin, I'm sure) to illustrate the case I'm making here: "The question at issue isn't whether OT prophets were consciously Trinitarian but whether OT theism is consistent with or open to the revelation of the Trinity and Incarnation. "
ReplyDeletePoint being, I think we're looking for two different things. You're looking for specific warrant and I'm satisfied with "is consistent with."
jason:
ReplyDelete"Jason, I'm well aware of everything you cite."
JE: Now that you've read my posts.
*snorts and tips cap* That’s funny! Nicely done. I totally respect a good jab. Really, I bought the 37 volume set for a couple hundred bucks from christianbook.com or some place in 1999 and started reading….
“The fact that he [Origen] was criticized in one context doesn't change the fact that his beliefs in another context seem to have been within the mainstream of Christianity.”
I think you’ve claimed that but I don’t think you’ve come anywhere close to sufficiently demonstrating it.
You wrote:
“What matters most in this context is whether there's enough known about the ante-Nicene era to give us the information we're after,”
Agreed. You simply haven’t convinced me that there is.
“And we don't appeal to ridiculous hypotheses about those later patristic Christians concealing their beliefs.”
If you’re going to jab, try to be funny like the earlier comment. Besides, I didn’t say they “concealed” them, I said we shouldn’t be surprised that we don’t have documentary evidence for literally every thing and I don’t think anything you’ve presented gainsays that.
“It's such a consensus that you have to try to come up with a way to dismiss the relevance of hundreds of years of evidence pertaining to church history, speculate that the consensus you're appealing to was being concealed, and ignore the problems with your consensus assertion in other eras of history.”
It actually is! The implication of what you’re saying is basically a conspiracy theory. Basically, I can find my faith in every century for the last 20. Hence, the principle of consensus (Vincent of Lerins, with certain modifications…). But I can’t find evangelical, much less specifically Calvinist, beliefs in the same with. So I’m not trying to coming up with anything, just expressing what I’ve received. It is you who seem to be kicking against the pricks, so to speak….
At any rate, like I said, y’all also argue “is consistent with” as opposed to “specific warrant” when you need to, so I’m not sure why I should be accused of coming up with things and speculating and what not.
But I still love you because of the quality of that first jab….
jason: What you need to explain is how Christ's conquering of death supposedly implies your conclusion. You haven't done that.
ReplyDeleteIn case I didn't make it clear, I'm not going to and don't need to. In any case, it's analogous to steve's statement: it's consistent with.
Above I asked you to spell out your argument, to which you replied you already have. Now here with Jason, when asked the equivalent question, you say you are “not going to and don’t need to” make such an argument. You’re arguing in bad faith. That’s worthy of being banned.
DeleteI meant I've said everything that can be said. I'm sorry you feel like that's arguing in bad faith. I assure you I'm not trying to mess with you or anyone else, but it feels like we're beyond that. Cheers and God bless.
DeleteA better way to fix that is to actually present an exegetical (among other arguments) for your position. How exegetically speaking does Christ’s resurrection mean that the OT prohibition against contacting the deceased is now defunct? How exegetically speaking does Christ’s resurrection mean it’s now licit to contact the dead?
Deletechris wrote:
Delete"You're looking for specific warrant and I'm satisfied with 'is consistent with.'"
I've argued that the evidence is against praying to the dead, on multiple grounds. That undermines your claim of consistency. So, saying that you're just affirming consistency isn't enough. I've provided reasons for thinking there isn't such consistency.
And you initially tried to offer warrant for praying to the dead. Once we explained why your attempt failed, you retreated into your current position.
You write:
"You simply haven’t convinced me that there is."
When I present arguments and evidence for my conclusions, as I did, it's not enough for you to respond by just telling us that you aren't convinced. You need to interact with the arguments and evidence. You're wasting everybody's time when you just make comments like the one quoted above. You seem to be stalling for time and trying to put up an appearance of having a more credible position than you actually have.
You write:
"Basically, I can find my faith in every century for the last 20."
Except for the ones you exempt. What you mean is "every" in the sense of "not every".
And I've explained why church history isn't all that's relevant. Prayer existed in the B.C. era as well. If you want to exempt that era, you need to justify the exemption rather than just asserting it. Saying that Jesus conquered death doesn't justify such an exemption, for reasons we've explained.
You write:
"Hence, the principle of consensus (Vincent of Lerins, with certain modifications…)."
Yes, those fine-print "modifications" are pretty significant. When you're exempting so many centuries of history, your claim of a historical consensus has to have an asterisk next to it.
You write:
"But I can’t find evangelical, much less specifically Calvinist, beliefs in the same with."
I'm not a Calvinist, and I don't make claims about history that are equivalent to those made by Eastern Orthodox (and Roman Catholics and others). Different claims involve different burdens of proof.
Apologies for assuming you are something you are not.
Deletehawk: Well, that cuts both ways, inasmuch as I was raised with your perspective on Scripture and tradition
ReplyDeleteYou were raised Orthodox?
prayer is central feature of Christian faith and piety. If Christians are supposed to pray to the dead, we'd expect the NT to contain explicit commands to that effect.
ReplyDelete