What are the Old Testament passages about not contacting the dead referring to?

There are some passages in the Old Testament that condemn resorting to mediums and some other practices (Deuteronomy 18:10-12, Leviticus 20:6, 2 Kings 21:6, Isaiah 8:19, etc.). The passages are sometimes brought up in discussions of prayer to saints.

It's popular to take the passages as addressing something narrow like seeking information about the future or trying to get the dead to verbally communicate with you, something that isn't being done by those who practice prayer to saints. And advocates of praying to saints often argue that the saints being prayed to are spiritually alive. It supposedly follows that even if the passages under consideration are about trying to contact the dead in a broader way that goes beyond something like seeking information about the future or trying to get verbal communication from the dead, the passages aren't relevant, since the saints in heaven aren't dead in the way that matters. What should we make of those responses?

Did Hippolytus support prayer to saints?

Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have been citing him in support of the practice for a long time, including in response to Gavin Ortlund's recent video on praying to saints. Few Protestants have addressed Hippolytus' view to any significant extent. I've been writing about it for many years, like here. You can go there for an overview of some relevant material in Hippolytus, some of the arguments involved, and so forth. For the purposes of this post, I'll just quote one passage, the one advocates of prayer to saints keep bringing up:

Do the Psalms support prayer to angels?

I've sometimes brought up the hymn "Angels From The Realms Of Glory" in discussions of prayer to saints and angels. The first verse reads:

Did Origen advocate praying to saints and angels in his Song of Songs commentary?

Gavin Ortlund recently released a video on prayer to saints. Some Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have responded. Origen's view of prayer has gotten a lot of attention. I'm going to address the subject again. I'll largely be reiterating what I've said before, but I'll be including some new evidence as well.

Were the earliest Christians united under a papacy?

In a recent video discussing his conversion to Roman Catholicism, Joe Schmid said:

"And then, totally unsurprisingly, given their defective courtless system for church governance, Protestantism turns into a schism fest....You know, Christ wanted people to remain united while preserving the whole truth full and inviolate. Any sensible guy, much less the omniscient Creator of the universe, could foresee that the Protestant system was not going to work for that....Commonsensically, if Christ intended to establish a unified worldwide church that would preserve one faith across nations and centuries, a continuing teaching office is exactly the sort of institution we should expect him to provide. And then when we turn to history, we discover that this is exactly what the earliest Christians adopted."

In the second century, Celsus wrote:

"Christians at first were few in number, and held the same opinions; but when they grew to be a great multitude, they were divided and separated, each wishing to have his own individual party: for this was their object from the beginning....being thus separated through their numbers, they confute one another, still having, so to speak, one name in common, if indeed they still retain it. And this is the only thing which they are yet ashamed to abandon, while other matters are determined in different ways by the various sects." (cited in Origen's Against Celsus 3:10, 3:12)

And see here regarding Origen's response to Celsus, which further illustrates the absence of a papacy in early church history. Or see here regarding the anti-papal ecclesiology of Ignatius of Antioch, among many other examples that could be cited.

Does the background to First Clement support a papacy?

First Clement opens with a reference to how the Corinthians had requested help from the Romans, how the document was being written to address "the points respecting which you consulted us" (1). It's sometimes suggested that papal authority is implied. Why did the Corinthians consult the Romans? Since there's a good chance that the apostle John was still alive, why didn't they consult him instead?

The Assumption Of Mary Isn't Just Absent In The Earliest Sources

People often underestimate the evidence against an assumption of Mary and the evidence against the idea that her assumption is an apostolic tradition always held by the church. While it's true that the concept of an assumption of Mary is absent in the earliest generations of church history, the evidence against the concept goes far beyond that. See my posts here and here about how often the Biblical and extrabiblical sources discuss a wide range of topics relevant to an assumption of Mary, mentioning many individuals other than Mary in the process, without saying anything about an assumption that Mary experienced. Here's a post that discusses other contexts, like ancient Christian artwork, in which an assumption of Mary or other relevant events (e.g., her being raised from the dead) could have been included, but weren't. Again, keep in mind that many people other than Mary are included in such contexts, even though Mary isn't. There's also the fact that some patristic and medieval sources either expressed agnosticism about whether Mary was assumed (see here and here) or denied that she was assumed (see here and here). And here's a post about a medieval Pope who referred to belief in Mary's assumption as optional. On the problems with appealing to doctrinal development in support of an assumption of Mary, see here.

You can find many other posts with relevant material in our archives. See the list of posts under the Assumption of Mary label here, for example.

Why think Hebrews is canonical?

Cameron Bertuzzi recently posted a video asking Protestants a few questions about Hebrews. I've addressed the questions before, but I'll summarize my answers here and provide links to some of my older material on the issues involved and more recent updates.

Raising Hypotheticals Against Eternal Security

A post I wrote last week addressed some problems with the claims Trent Horn has made about the history of belief in eternal security. Not only were there individuals who believed in some form of eternal security before the Reformation, but there were movements involving such beliefs spanning multiple regions of the world over multiple generations. Not only was there a mercyist movement that Augustine responded to in his day (see here and here), but he also thought that such beliefs were held as far back as the time of the apostles, even though he disagreed with the mercyists, and he acknowledged that some of them were Christians. Or, to cite an example from the medieval era, think of Gottschalk and his allies and the people who held similar views around the same time. These and other examples illustrate that Trent and others (e.g., his supporters in the comments section below his video) have highly inaccurate views of the historical theology on this subject.

Catholics Contradicting Each Other About Eternal Security

I recently saw a Catholic claim that no Christian believed in eternal security before the Reformation. Supposedly, only Gnostics believed in it during that timeframe. See the comments section of the thread here. And Trent Horn repeatedly denied that there was any pre-Reformation support for eternal security in his debate with Ryan Hemelaar (of NeedGod.net). Go here to watch Trent say that no "notable" Christian held to eternal security before the Reformation. He goes on to refer to how the concept is "absent" before the Reformation. And here he refers to how "nobody" held the view during that timeframe. Later he asks Ryan to name "any individual" from the second to the fifteenth centuries. Near the end of the debate, Trent comments that even "named heretics" didn't hold to eternal security, and he refers to it as a "radical, novel" concept.

Was Ignatius of Antioch Roman Catholic?

He's been discussed a lot lately by various Catholics. See this recent video by Cameron Bertuzzi, for example. And Ignatius has often been cited in support of Catholicism and against Protestantism for many years. It's not just a recent development. It's been popular for a long time in Catholic circles to cite Ignatius as a major problem for Protestants, because of comments he makes about issues like the monarchical episcopate and how the eucharist is the flesh and blood of Christ.

But some Protestants believe in the monarchical episcopate and a bodily presence of Christ in the eucharist. And the sort of language Ignatius uses about the eucharist is also used by him in other contexts that aren't interpreted by anybody the way advocates of a bodily presence of Christ in the eucharist are interpreting his eucharistic comments. See my discussion here. And here are some other examples not discussed in that thread I just linked:

How much were the Zeitoun Marian apparitions associated with Coptic Christianity?

The subject is important not only because of the use of Zeitoun by Roman Catholics, but also because of how positively other non-Copts view the apparitions. Given the closeness of Coptic Christianity and the Zeitoun apparitions, how do non-Copts reconcile an acceptance of the apparitions as Marian with their rejection of Coptic Christianity?

Problems With Roman Catholic Apparitions Of Mary

Fatima has been getting an unusual amount of attention lately, largely because of a recent debate on the subject between Ethan Muse and Sean Luke. The Zeitoun apparitions got a lot of attention last year. I don't know enough about Fatima to address it as much as I have Zeitoun. But I want to discuss some of the factors involved in evaluating Marian apparitions in general.

Evidence Against Alternatives To Sola Scriptura

A neglected line of evidence in controversies over sola scriptura is the absence of alternatives in contexts in which we'd expect them to be discussed if the sources involved believed in those alternatives. The New Testament says nothing of the bishop of Rome, much less does it tell Christians to look to him as the infallible standard of orthodoxy in the future. When Paul, Peter, and John are approaching death or are operating in some other relevant context, they turn their audience's attention to remembering what Jesus taught in the past, remembering what the apostles taught in the past, and scripture, but say nothing of anything like an infallible Pope, magisterium, or ecumenical councils. The earliest opponents of Christianity say a lot about things like Jesus' teachings and scripture, but show no knowledge of a papacy, an allegedly infallible church, etc. I've discussed issues like these many times in the past. See here and here, for example.

There's also the fact that Papias, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and other early sources defined the church and tradition much differently than modern opponents of sola scriptura do. So, citing them against sola scriptura doesn't lead us to the alternatives most modern critics of sola scriptura are advocating. In fact, the beliefs of the early extrabiblical sources are largely inconsistent with the beliefs of groups like Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. See the many examples discussed here. Or see here regarding Irenaeus and here regarding Tertullian, for instance.

You can click on the sola scriptura label at the bottom of this post for an archive of many of our posts on the subject. For example, shortly before his death, Steve Hays wrote a post on sola scriptura that makes some good points that are often neglected.

How Often The Church Fathers "Demeaned" Mary

Boniface Ramsey, in his translation of the sermons of Maximus of Turin, refers to passages in which Maximus "demeans" Mary (The Sermons Of St. Maximus Of Turin [Mahwah, New Jersey: Newman Press, 1989], n. 1 on p. 365). Given Roman Catholicism's history of claiming that Mary is God's greatest creation, that she was sinless throughout her life, that she cooperated with Jesus' work in the world at every moment of her life, and so on, it doesn't take much to say something that demeans Mary from a Catholic perspective. For example:

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.

Resources For Addressing The Papacy

The papacy has been getting a lot of attention lately, because of the Pope's death. Go here for a brief summary of some of the evidence against the papacy. The main section of the post is just two paragraphs long, summarizing some problems with Roman Catholic appeals to Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16 and several contexts in which there could have been evidence for an early papacy, but the office is absent or contradicted instead. And here's a collection of many of our posts on the papacy, including lengthier discussions of the issues summarized in the first post linked above.

More About Zeitoun And The Resurrection

Cameron Bertuzzi just posted a video responding to Gavin Ortlund regarding the Zeitoun Marian apparitions. I want to address several of the issues involved.

Bede On Jesus' Opposition To Mary In Luke 8:19

"Allegorically this text [Luke 8:19] harmonizes with the one above, where it is said of the Jews who attend only to the letter of the Law: And whoever has not, that also which he thinks he has, will be taken away from him. For the Synagogue from whose flesh he was begot is the mother and brothers of Jesus and the Jewish people. Because the Saviour is teaching inside they are unable to enter in, even though they come, since they neglect to understand his sayings spiritually. The crowd in anticipation enters his house, because, with Judea abandoning him, the Gentiles flocked to Christ, and being more mentally receptive the nearer they were in faith, they drank in the inward mysteries of life, in accordance with what the Psalmist says: Come to him and be enlightened." (Bede, Calvin Kendall and Faith Wallis, translators and editors, Bede: Commentary On The Gospel Of Luke [Liverpool, England: Liverpool University Press, 2023], 324-25)

I've written elsewhere about Bede's ignorance of the assumption of Mary.

Did prayer to saints and angels develop in a way comparable to the development of the canon?

When the historical evidence against a Roman Catholic belief is brought up, a common Catholic response is to compare the development of that belief to the development of the canon of scripture or Trinitarianism. Here's something I recently posted in a YouTube thread about the subject. YouTube has had a problem for years with some people's posts sometimes not appearing. Many of my posts don't appear after I submit them, and I still haven't found a way to determine which posts will go through and which won't. The one below didn't go up. Here's a link to the YouTube comment I was responding to. You can read that comment and the surrounding context if you want more information about what led up to my response below.