Rev. Dr. Jordan B. Cooper is a Lutheran pastor, adjunct professor of Systematic Theology, Executive Director of the popular Just & Sinner YouTube channel, and the President of the American Lutheran Theological Seminary (which holds to a doctrinally traditional Lutheranism, similar to the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod). He has authored several books, as well as theological articles in a variety of publications.
*****
I will be responding to the “saints portion” of Jordan’s YouTube video, “Five Reasons I Am Not Roman Catholic” (1-27-19). When I cite his words directly, they will be in blue, and citations and descriptions of his arguments will be accompanied by the time in the video as well.
Certainly I believe in the communion of saints. I believe there are figures of exemplary faith that we should honor and look up to in Church history, and all of those things are very much important. But . . . there are a number of significant problems [in the Catholic view of the saints]. . . . In official Roman Catholic theology, . . . there are very specific ideas of what it means, for example, to pray to the saints; that prayer to the saints is not a worship of the saints, but one is simply speaking to the saints as part of the communion of saints. They are closer to God and they speak to God on our behalf and we are looking at them in the way that we would ask people on earth to pray for us. . . . But if you look at the practical reality of how that works itself out, in terms of personal piety, it does become an act, I think, of worship. Scripturally, there simply is no category for prayer that is not worship. Prayer is always addressed to God. Prayer is very much connected to worship. And so this divide that you have between prayer to the saints that is not worship and prayer to God that is an aspect of worship, is simply one that I do not see scripturally. And I think if you just look at the fruits historically, of the idea of prayers to the saints, what it leads to is really superstition and idolatry. That becomes very clear. [5:48-7:34]
He then acknowledges that various aspects of communion of saints were present in the early Church, but essentially dismisses it by saying that “it’s not that prominent” [7:46-7:48].
In the Bible, prayer is not always addressed to God, and it’s not always worship. I would even argue that when addressed to God, most of the time prayer is not worship; it’s making requests of Him, for ourselves or others. When we “work together with” God (a common biblical theme, especially in Paul), that’s not worship, either, technically speaking, though it is communion with God. Jesus Himself provides an example of prayer to Abraham:
Luke 16:24 (RSV) And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Laz’arus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame.’
This is the Abraham of the Bible: long dead by that time, being asked to do something by a “rich man” (16:19, 22), traditionally known as Dives (which is simply a Latin word for “rich man”). His answer was, in effect, “no” (16:25-26). Thus failing in that request, he prays to him again for something else:
Luke 16:27-28 And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father [KJV: “I pray thee therefore, father”], to send him to my father’s house, [28] for I have five brothers, so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’
His request is again declined (16:29). So, like any good self-respecting Jew (Moses even “negotiated” with God), he argues with Abraham (16:30). But Abraham states again that his request is futile (16:31).
This shows (in a fascinating way) that not only can dead saints hear our requests, they also have some measure of power to carry them out on their own. Abraham is asked to “send” a dead man to appear to Dives’ brothers, in order for them to avoid damnation (yet another [potential] instance of dead men — like the prophet Samuel to Saul — communicating to those on the earth). Abraham doesn’t deny that he is able to potentially send Lazarus to do such a thing; he only denies that it would work, or that it is necessary (by the logic of “if they don’t respond to greater factor x, nor will they to lesser factor y”).
Therefore, it is assumed in the story that Abraham could have possibly done so on his own. And this is all told, remember, by our Lord Jesus. It is disputed whether it is a parable or not (several textual factors suggest that it is not; e.g., parables do not use proper names), but even if it is, it nevertheless cannot contain things that are untrue, lest Jesus be guilty of leading people into heresy by means of false illustrations or analogies within His common teaching tool: the parable.
Whether Dives was dead or not is also irrelevant to the argument at hand, since standard Protestant theology holds that no one can make such a request to anyone but God (and Dr. Cooper reiterates this as pertains to Lutheranism). He’s asking Abraham to send Lazarus to him, and then to his brothers, to prevent them from going to hell. That is very much, prayer: asking for supernatural aid from those who have left the earthly life and attained sainthood and perfection, with God.
Quibbling about whether it was a parable (an argument that fails, anyway, as shown) or whether the requester was dead does not allow Protestants to escape the internal difficulties for them, as mentioned.
Abraham is functioning as a mini-mediator. He is being asked to accomplish certain things. An intercessory request was made of him, not God. In fact, God is never mentioned in the entire story. Why did Jesus teach in this fashion? Why did He teach that Dives was asking Abraham to do things that Protestant theology would hold that only God can do? And why is the whole story about him asking Abraham for requests, rather than going directly to God and asking Him: which is required by Lutheran and general Protestant theology?
Folks, this story just ain’t how it’s supposed to be, from a Lutheran / general Protestant perspective. All the emphases are wrong, and there are serous theological errors, committed by Jesus Himself (i.e., from their perspective). That should be enough to raise the red flags for any serious Christian who believes in biblical inspiration and the deity of Christ (both of which dictate that no such error can possibly exist).
I yield to the Bible over men’s traditions any day. We mustn’t allow our theology to contradict the inspired, infallible Bible.
A similar dynamic is in the story of King Saul seeking to speak to the prophet Samuel. Catholics agree that seeking him through a medium and occultic techniques is wrong. But the real Samuel does indeed appear. It’s not a “demon impersonating him” as some claim [for the rebuttal of that, see, e.g., New Bible Commentary, p. 301; Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 292. This was also the view of the ancient rabbis, St. Justin Martyr, Origen, and St. Augustine, among others], because Samuel gives an authentic prophecy (that is proven to be such the next day). Demons don’t tell the truth like that. Saul is praying to Samuel insofar as he seeks answers from him:
1 Samuel 28:15 . . . Saul answered, “I am in great distress; for the Philistines are warring against me, and God has turned away from me and answers me no more, either by prophets or by dreams; therefore I have summoned you to tell me what I shall do.”
Now note that Samuel doesn’t tell him — make a Lutheran point — that it is utterly impermissible for Saul to inquire of him (i.e., pray to him) in this way. He says something different:
1 Samuel 28:16 . . . “Why then do you ask me, since the LORD has turned from you and become your enemy?”
In other words, he’s saying, “why do you think I can help you, since God Himself has already turned from you?!” But he doesn’t say what he should say, if Protestant theology is true: “Why do you ask of me a petitionary request and pray to me? Don’t you know that prayer is only to be directed to God, and never to deceased men or angels?” That would be the RLV, or Revised Lutheran Version of the Bible [sarcasm]. But I use the RSV.
Then having said that, Samuel actually in effect answers Saul’s prayer, but in a way that Saul doesn’t want to hear: he accurately predicts his death in battle the next day (1 Sam 28:17-19).
There is also a scriptural argument to be made regarding prayer to / invocation of / intercession of angels:
1) Men talk to angels in Holy Scripture [many examples].
2) What’s the difference if they are in heaven or on earth when this happens?
3) Angels are extremely intelligent and can deduce our thoughts and follow our actions, and they intensely care about us and are able to help us.
4) Therefore we can ask angels to pray, and we can also pray to them and make petitionary requests (which they can carry out as representatives of God, on His behalf).
This is not only theoretically possible and theologically permissible; there are actual examples of it in the Bible (and they’re not presented as even improper, let alone blasphemous, idolatrous, or sinful). The petitionary or intercessory requests are in blue below. The angels’ responses to prayer are in green.
Genesis 19:15, 18-21 When morning dawned, the angels urged Lot, saying, “Arise, take your wife and your two daughters who are here, lest you be consumed in the punishment of the city.”. . . And Lot said to them, “Oh, no, my lords; behold, your servant has found favor in your sight, and you have shown me great kindness in saving my life; but I cannot flee to the hills, lest the disaster overtake me, and I die. Behold, yonder city is near enough to flee to, and it is a little one. Let me escape there — is it not a little one? — and my life will be saved!” He said to him, “Behold, I grant you this favor also, that I will not overthrow the city of which you have spoken.
Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament wrote about this passage:
[T]here is nothing to indicate that Jehovah suddenly joined the angels. The only supposition that remains, therefore, is that Lot recognised in the two angels a manifestation of God, and so addressed them (Genesis 19:18) as Adonai (my Lord), and that the angel who spoke addressed him as the messenger of Jehovah in the name of God, without its following from this, that Jehovah was present in the two angels. [the angels distinguish themselves from God in Genesis 19:13 above]
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary states: “His request was granted him, the prayer of faith availed . . .”
Lot petitioned an angel (Gen 19:20) and his request was granted (Gen 19:21). How is this any different from a prayer? Therefore, it is prayer to someone other than God by a man on earth, and the fact that it was granted and that the angel did not tell him, “you must petition / pray to God only!” proves that it was perfectly proper to do so.
Genesis 32:24-29 And Jacob was left alone; and a man wrestled with him until the breaking of the day. When the man saw that he did not prevail against Jacob, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and Jacob’s thigh was put out of joint as he wrestled with him. Then he said, “Let me go, for the day is breaking.” But Jacob said, “I will not let you go, unless you bless me.” And he said to him, “What is your name?” And he said, “Jacob.” Then he said, “Your name shall no more be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed.” Then Jacob asked him, “Tell me, I pray, your name.” But he said, “Why is it that you ask my name?” And there he blessed him.
Genesis 48:14-16 And Israel stretched out his right hand and laid it upon the head of E’phraim, who was the younger, and his left hand upon the head of Manas’seh, crossing his hands, for Manas’seh was the first-born. And he blessed Joseph, and said, “The God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked, the God who has led me all my life long to this day, the angel who has redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and in them let my name be perpetuated, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.”
Note: the “angel of the LORD” is, in the Bible, on several occasions, but not always (see Ex 23:20-22; 33:14; 2 Sam 24:16; Zech 1:12), equated in context with God Himself. Keep in mind, then, that in those instances it may be God Who is being addressed, not a created angel, which is a different scenario than what my present argument is addressing (when the angel is separate of God but His direct representative).
Matthew 27:46-50 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, la’ma sabach-tha’ni?” that is, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” [47] And some of the bystanders hearing it said, “This man is calling Eli’jah.” [48] And one of them at once ran and took a sponge, filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave it to him to drink. [49] But the others said, “Wait, let us see whether Eli’jah will come to save him.” [50] And Jesus cried again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit. (cf. Mk 15:34-36)
The “bystanders” are presented as allies of Jesus, since one of them gave Him a drink, in the next verse (Matthew 27:48). The next verse (27:49) again shows that this was common belief at the time: “But the others said, ‘Wait, let us see whether Eli’jah will come to save him.’”
Thus, it was believed that one could pray to one such as Elijah (who had already appeared with Jesus at the transfiguration), and that he had power to come and give aid; to “save” a person (in this case, Jesus from a horrible death). It’s not presented as if they are wrong, and in light of other related Scriptures it is more likely that they are correct in thinking that this was a permitted scenario.
Jesus, after all , had already referred to Elijah, saying that he was the prototype for John the Baptist (Mt 11:14; 17:10-13; cf. Lk 1:17 from the angel Gabriel), and it could also have been known that Elijah and Moses appeared with Jesus at the transfiguration (Mt 17:1-6), if these were His followers.
Jordan claimed about the Bible: “Prayer is always addressed to God.” I have just provided six passages from the Bible that refute this. If it’s a biblical practice and teaching, then Lutherans shouldn’t reject it and forbid it. And if individual Catholics fail to properly understand this, that is their fault, or that of their immediate teachers, but not a problem with thoroughly thought-through Catholic theology of the communion of saints or the biblical rationale for it.
All religions (and sub-groups in them) have many practitioners who don’t properly understand various teachings in their own faith. That’s not a disproof of the teachings and beliefs; it’s only a proof that human beings are (sadly) so often misinformed and undereducated; sometimes even willfully ignorant. As an apologist, a big part of my job and motivation is to see that this is not the case: that people know what they believe and why, and that their Christian belief should always be in harmony with the Bible. If it isn’t, then it has to be seriously re-examined and modified, as needs be.
***
Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!
***
Photo credit: Lazarus and the Rich Man (1865), by Eduard von Gebhardt (1838-1925) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
***
Summary: Lutheran theologian Jordan Cooper rejects invocation of saints by saying, “Prayer is always addressed to God.” I refute this with six biblical counter-examples.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In