The Evidence From Origen Against Prayer To Saints And Angels

The mainstream view during the Biblical era and among the earliest extrabiblical sources was that we should pray only to God, not to saints and angels. See my collection of articles arguing for that conclusion, along with discussions of ongoing opposition to praying to saints and angels in later generations of pre-Reformation church history, here.

Origen is an important extrabiblical source on the topic. He's significant for more than one reason. He wrote a lot of material that's extant. He wrote an entire treatise on prayer. He addressed prayer many times in other contexts. The subject of who we should pray to came up a lot in his response to Celsus, a second-century pagan who consulted one or more Jewish sources when studying Christianity. So, Origen's treatise against Celsus reflects how a variety of sources perceived Christian views of prayer at the time.

I've written too many posts about Origen's material on prayer for me to link all of them here. You can use something like a Google search to find the relevant posts or see our collections of posts under post labels like Origen and Prayer. The post here goes into a lot of depth in response to some common arguments about Origen put forward by advocates of praying to saints and angels. And here's one about some material in Origen's Homilies On Ezekiel that's sometimes misused to make it appear that Origen supported prayer to angels. There are many other relevant posts in our archives, including some in comments sections of threads and in posts that don't have the Origen label, for example. If you're interested in an issue related to Origen and praying to saints and angels, there's a good chance you can find some relevant material somewhere in our archives.

It's important to go into discussions of this topic with some distinctions in mind. Supporters of praying to saints and angels will often change the subject, as if support for other prayer practices implies support for praying to saints and angels when it actually doesn't. They'll bring up passages in Origen about whether angels pray with us, even though that's a distinct issue from whether we should pray to angels. Or whether saints in heaven pray for us will be cited, as if it implies support for praying to those saints, which it doesn't. You have to be careful to consistently maintain such distinctions. Otherwise, your thinking about these issues and the discussions you have about them will go off track.

Baptismal real presence?

We're frequently told that we should hold a highly efficacious view of baptism or the eucharist because the church fathers and other pre-Reformation sources often expressed such a view. As I've mentioned before, we also find other views among the pre-Reformation sources, so we need to take those other views into account as well. Another problem with appeals to highly efficacious language in these sources is that they also used such language in many other contexts, including contexts in which modern proponents of a highly efficacious view of baptism or the eucharist don't hold such an efficacious view of those other things. See the many examples discussed in my post here on pre-Reformation views of initiatory rites. That post cites a book by G.W.H. Lampe, and here are some other comments he made in that same book:

He [Melito of Sardis] strongly emphasizes the theory of the Spirit's presence in the [baptismal] water, which, though quite unscriptural, becomes a commonplace in the Fathers and is developed by some ancient authors into a doctrine approximating to that of a 'Real Presence' of the Spirit in the font....

Again, on the other hand, the doctrine of a sort of 'Real Presence' of the Spirit in the water of Baptism is clearly expressed in the Homily on the Blessing of Jacob [attributed to Hippolytus]...

Zeno of Verona describes the baptismal water as 'aqua viva Spiritu sancto et igne dulcissimo temperata', and Gaudentius connects the miracle of Cana with the presence of the Spirit in the water and its reception by the baptized. These are, no doubt, expressions of pious rhetoric, but Cyril has a genuine doctrine of the Spirit's 'real presence' in the water, a theory amounting almost to a conception of the transubstantiation of water into Spirit, John of Damascus explains that the Spirit comes upon the water through epiclesis, and we must not ignore the significance of the common practice of dipping torches into the font

(The Seal Of The Spirit [Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2004], 115, 144, 211-12)

An Easy Way To Date Opposition To Mary's Perpetual Virginity Before Helvidius

Advocates of the perpetual virginity of Mary sometimes acknowledge that there was opposition to the concept before Helvidius. They'll sometimes acknowledge that Tertullian didn't think Mary was a perpetual virgin, for example. However, some of them claim that Helvidius was the first source we know of who held that view. What I want to do in this post is discuss a line of evidence that can be brought up against that claim, some evidence that they'll likely accept more easily than they'd accept an argument that somebody like Luke or Irenaeus denied Mary's perpetual virginity.

Are Protestants underestimating Mary?

Ben Merritt of Cleave to Antiquity recently produced a video in which he interviewed an eyewitness of the Zeitoun Marian apparitions and concluded that he accepts the apparitions as appearances of Mary. In the comments section, Sean Luke of Anglican Aesthetics said that he holds a similar view. Other commenters also said that they're Protestant and accept the apparitions as appearances of Mary. In another recent video, Myles Christian of Canon & Creed provided "a historical survey of giants in Protestant history who held Mary in high esteem". He cites their belief in concepts like Mary's perpetual virginity, her becoming sinless after conception, and her assumption. Elsewhere in the video, he refers to a problem with Protestants "overcorrecting" errors about Mary. He asks at another point, "Are we possibly missing something that they [earlier Protestants] saw from scripture?" One portion of the video refers to an argument for Mary's assumption based on fetal microchimerism, but doesn't explain how it allegedly leads to the conclusion that Mary was assumed. He ends the video by commenting, "But if men like the reformers, who were radically committed to sola scriptura, sola fide, and the purity of the gospel, if they could hold Mary in high esteem without compromising their convictions, then maybe we can too."

Was Tertullian the only early opponent of infant baptism?

I often see advocates of infant baptism referring to the history of credobaptism as if Tertullian is the only credobaptist source or the only source we know of who was somewhat close to credobaptism in the earliest centuries, the only prominent source early on, or some such thing. Sometimes they won't even mention Tertullian, as if nobody opposed infant baptism before the Reformation. But the evidence suggests that credobaptism was the only or dominant view during the earliest generations of church history. Many church fathers and other individuals other than Tertullian seem to have been closer to credopaptism than paedobaptism. For an overview, including patristic and medieval sources before and after Tertullian, see here. And here's one on Aristides, a pre-Tertullian source. They give a variety of reasons for waiting until after infancy for baptism, such as waiting until the person baptized has an understanding of and has professed the faith and the importance of having the person baptized choose to participate in baptism. The notion that everybody who delayed baptism did so only or primarily to have his baptism cover more sins later in life is demonstrably false.

More Pre-Reformation Disagreements Over Baptism And John 3:5

I've written a lot over the years about how diversely John 3:5 was interpreted prior to the Reformation, contrary to the popular suggestion that there was more agreement about the passage. For example, it's sometimes claimed, falsely, that everybody or almost everybody thought the passage teaches baptismal regeneration. I've discussed many examples of Christians who rejected baptismal regeneration before the Reformation, like here. Those who assigned some kind of high efficaciousness to baptism widely disagreed with each other about the sort of efficaciousness involved. Go here for a discussion of some examples. People often lowered their view of baptism in order to heighten their view of something else (prebaptismal faith, prebaptismal anointing with oil, postbaptismal anointing with oil, the laying on of hands, etc.). Such tradeoffs would inevitably affect the sort of efficaciousness assigned to baptism in an interpretation of John 3:5. Some people held a highly efficacious view of both prebaptismal faith and baptism. To the extent that they were consistent in maintaining those views, there would have to be a tradeoff. Heightening your view of prebaptismal faith lowers your view of baptism in some contexts, as I've discussed elsewhere. And there were many other issues that influenced how people understood John 3. As I've discussed elsewhere, there was widespread disagreement before the Reformation about types of baptism other than water baptism, such as baptism of desire. And there were disagreements over whether Jesus' comments in John 3:5 were in effect at the time when he spoke the words in that passage or wouldn't go into effect until later. Those who thought John 3:5 wouldn't be applicable until later disagreed over which later point in time that was.

Why was there so much diversity in ancient baptismal beliefs and practices?

Gavin Ortlund just posted a video about how the historical evidence favors credobaptism over paedobaptism. I agree with him, and I've written about the subject in other posts, like here.

What I want to focus on in this post is why we see so many differences, and often contradictions, among the ancient sources on baptismal issues if what critics of Protestantism tell us about the nature of the church and other relevant issues is true. If there was one church that all or a large percentage of these sources belonged to, with the sort of unity people like Romans Catholics and Eastern Orthodox often claim they had in the past, with their infallible church maintaining all apostolic teaching in every generation, providing guidance, scripture interpretation, the settling of controversies, and such in the way modern Catholics and modern Orthodox often claim their church provides, why do we see such diversity in the historical record on baptismal issues? Some of the differences went on for centuries, sometimes a millennium or more.

Hermas (who lived in Rome, a significant context in relation to Roman Catholicism) advocated postmortem baptism (The Shepherd Of Hermas, Book 3, Similitudes, 9:16; see, for further discussion, Anthony Lusvardi, Baptism Of Desire And Christian Salvation [Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University Of America Press, 2024], 15-18). As I discussed in a recent post, people like Cyprian thought John 3:5 refers to two sacraments, not just baptism. Cyprian, along with others, also disagreed with Roman Catholicism about the validity of heretical baptism. As I discussed in another recent post, the concept of baptism of desire was widely absent or contradicted early on and didn't become a majority view until well into church history. And there are many other baptismal views the early sources held that are wrong by the standards of modern Roman Catholicism and modern Eastern Orthodoxy. For a discussion of a lot of other examples, see here. The views we find in the early sources include credobaptism and justification apart from baptism.

The Conspicuous Absence Of Prayer To Saints And Angels

Prayer is a large part of the Christian life, and it's discussed explicitly and often in the Biblical record from Genesis onward. The best explanation for the lack of prayer to sources other than God, such as saints and angels, is that prayer was thought to be something offered only to God. There are other lines of evidence against praying to saints and angels, which I've discussed elsewhere. But the evidence I'm focused on here has a lot of significance. To get a better idea of its significance among the extrabiblical sources, look at how often "pray" and other relevant terms are used in the Didache, the Shepherd Of Hermas, Justin Martyr, etc. That isn't the only evidence we should consider, but it is one important line of evidence among others. Prayer to God is mentioned explicitly and often. Prayer to saints and angels isn't advocated in the Biblical sources or the earliest extrabiblical ones and is sometimes contradicted in one way or another.

A Patristic Belief Isn't A Patristic Priority

I've often discussed examples of how critics of Protestantism, such as Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, disagree with the church fathers and other pre-Reformation sources on various issues. See here for a collection of many examples. Something else to keep in mind is how often critics of Protestantism agree with certain pre-Reformation sources about a particular issue, yet disagree with their assessment of the issue's significance. The fact that a church father believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, for example, doesn't mean he thought the issue has the significance assigned to it by modern proponents of the doctrine. See the examples discussed here and here.

The fact that a source held a belief doesn't tell you how he prioritized it. We need to keep that distinction in mind. And since Catholics and Orthodox often disagree with patristic priorities (and medieval priorities), they should allow some Protestant disagreement with those sources as well. Given that Protestants make lower claims about the sources in question, we should go further by adding that Protestant disagreements with the priorities of such sources is generally less problematic.

The Debate Between Joe Heschmeyer And Ryan Hemelaar On Baptism And Salvation

The large majority of what I would argue regarding both the Biblical evidence and the extrabiblical evidence didn't come up in the debate. See here for a collection of resources outlining my views on many of the relevant issues. I'll say a small amount about some Biblical topics that are relevant to other points I want to make, but my focus here will be on the extrabiblical sources.

Why do so many early sources say nothing about Mary's perpetual virginity while suggesting they rejected it?

Tom Schmidt recently published a book arguing for the authenticity and significance of Josephus' material on Christianity. I've written some posts in recent years about the importance of what Josephus tells us about the baptism of John the Baptist. And Schmidt's book reminded me of the significance of Josephus' comments on James' relationship with Jesus as it pertains to the perpetual virginity of Mary.

Think of how many sources in the earliest centuries address issues relevant to Mary's alleged perpetual virginity and not only don't affirm her perpetual virginity, but even use language that's most naturally taken to contradict it: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Josephus, Hegesippus, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Hippolytus. Those are just the sources in the earliest generations of church history. There was ongoing opposition to Mary's perpetual virginity well after the concept became popular in later centuries. The opposition continued into the medieval era. In the earliest generations, the belief that Mary gave birth to other children after Jesus seems to have been the dominant view. Josephus, like the other earliest sources, knew of other language he could have used and did use such language in other contexts ("relative", "cousin", etc.). Think of the cumulative effect of Josephus and the other sources involved. It's highly unlikely that so many early sources would believe in Mary's perpetual virginity, yet not only not refer to it, but even use language that seems to contradict the concept (multiple terms in multiple contexts and multiple types of contexts).

Justification Apart From Baptism In Augustine's Day

In a previous post, I said I might address the subject in the future. Here are a couple of relevant passages in Augustine:

How Diversely John 3:5 Was Interpreted Before The Reformation

The claim is often made that everybody agreed about the meaning of John 3:5 before the Reformation. Supposedly, there was universal agreement that the passage teaches baptismal regeneration.

The History Of Beliefs About The Unbaptized

Anthony Lusvardi recently published Baptism Of Desire And Christian Salvation (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University Of America Press, 2024). He's a Roman Catholic priest and scholar who did a doctoral dissertation on baptism of desire. Though the book is primarily about that subject, the book also addresses some related concepts to a lesser extent: baptism of blood, invincible ignorance, limbo, outside the church there is no salvation, the salvation of infants who die without having been baptized, etc.

Justification Apart From Baptism In The Eighth Century

Several centuries before the Reformation, Bede wrote against viewing 1 John 5:5 as support for justification through faith alone and, more specifically, justification apart from baptism:

The Gospel That Would Go Throughout The World

Tertullian acknowledged that people were justified apart from baptism during Jesus' public ministry. But in response to critics of baptismal regeneration, he wrote, "in days gone by, there was salvation by means of bare faith, before the passion and resurrection of the Lord", whereas now "the law of baptizing has been imposed" (On Baptism 13).

When Protestants Handle Debates Poorly

I'm not just referring to formal debates, though they're part of the problem. The bigger problem is how Protestants in general handle certain debates in general, whether formal or informal ones.

Bede On Opponents Of Mary's Perpetual Virginity

I've written before about how opposition to the perpetual virginity of Mary persisted beyond the earliest centuries, into the late patristic and early medieval eras. Bede, writing in the eighth century, uses the present tense to refer to opponents of the perpetual virginity of Mary:

The Abuse Of Water-Related Language In The Bible To Support Baptismal Regeneration

I've written before about the many Biblical passages that refer to water, cleansing, and such in relevant contexts without having baptism in mind. But advocates of baptismal regeneration take certain passages out of context to make them seem supportive of baptismal regeneration because of the water-related terminology that's used. Even where the context goes in the opposite direction, they appeal to phrases that can be made to appear supportive of baptismal regeneration if taken in isolation (e.g., citing the reference to water in John 3:5, even though Jesus goes on to refer to the Old Testament background of his comments and keeps referring to people being justified apart from baptism elsewhere in the gospels; citing the reference to washing in Titus 3:5, even though it's accompanied by an exclusion of works). I want to expand on my previous post, linked above, with a discussion of some other relevant passages.

"Simply Literal" Scripture Interpretation Long Before The Reformation

Critics of Protestantism often make much of the large amount of allegorizing in the church fathers' interpretations of scripture. But there was a lot of diversity in how scripture was interpreted, including interpretive approaches of a more literal nature, long before the Reformation. Though Jerome allegorized a lot, he acknowledged that other people in his day didn't:

"In the Scriptures, the words are not simply literal, as some think." (in Thomas Scheck, trans., St. Jerome: Commentary On Isaiah [Mahwah, New Jersey: The Newman Press, 2015], p. 938, Letter 18A:12)

You often come across comments like those in pre-Reformation sources. Whether they name who they have in mind or not, they refer to a diversity of interpretive methods and interpretations. Even among those who allegorized a lot, there was a lot of variation in terms of how they did so, the extent to which they did it, etc. There's diversity among those who interpret scripture more literally as well.