Luke 16, Invocation Of Saints, Protestants, & Jesus

**Photo credit**: Print illustrating the story of the rich man and Lazarus, from the Gospel of Luke, by Gustave Doré (1832-1883) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

This exchange took place in the combox of our video, “Can Catholics Pray to Saints? YES! This Bible Passage Proves It!” (2-6-26), about Luke 16 and the rich man praying to Abraham, with a Protestant who went by the nickname, @danielhaas9469. All of his words appear, in blue. I have made a few minor changes — clarifications or improvements — to my words and have corrected some grammatical elements in his. Words of a second Protestant commenter are in green, and of a third Protestant, in purple.

*****

I think you are comparing apples and oranges here. Firstly, both of these men died and were sent to their respective place in accordance to how they obeyed the Law. Secondly, you assume the idea that Abraham could do something about the Richman’s state that is not what you read from the text. Abraham tells them that his brothers have the Law and the Prophets – moreover Abraham tells him that since they won’t listen to the Law and the Prophets nor will they listen to a man raised from death. See the point?

This not a good comparison because firstly these men died and were able to communicate with one another but could not go over even if one was willing. Secondly, this is not teaching praying to saints since we are are in this tent – the physical body we are repeatedly instructed to give all of our supplications and prayers to the LORD. Now we can certainly pray for you or the government leaders etc. but notice who you are praying to! You pray to God about those things and however the Lord answers you is His prerogative. So in sum, these men are dead and are in Sheol (not in a heavenly place) is not teaching you to pray to a saint while alive in our physical tent.

All of this has been dealt with many times over, and you still don’t grapple with all that we set forth. But at least you put up some level of fight.

Okay great :) let’s then discuss those other areas that you have dealt with. I haven’t watched every video you have posted but I am certainly willing to listen so long as we can do this with respect. I did post another response of yours when you said something like Jesus sanctioned praying to death as well and I made some other insights. Let’s discuss :)

Another interesting question from me to you is: I agree, there are bad arguments; necromancy is not a good argument, because, you in our physical body/ tent conjure up a spirit or spirits to gain information from the dead ones. If such a person were to do this, especially under the Old Covenant which was expressly forbidden was primarily in trusting solely upon the LORD. It is the LORD who cares for us; It is the LORD who hears us; It is the LORD who saves us. Moving forward to praying to saints in the way that I have experienced it and in the way you seem to profess you are still not solely relying upon the LORD in those cases. Why? Because if you ask Mary to help you with a certain or to help you find your car keys (saints have certain alleged attributes to ask them to do various things), pray to this saint under [insert question]. So in these you truly are not relying upon the LORD who cares for you and will answer you because He promises you He would.

I have read prayers to Mary that ask her because through her all graces flow in which case you redirect all of your concerns to her instead of Jesus. Even for YOUR salvation prayers exists to Mary that says that by a word from Mary you would be saved. This no longer solely relies upon the LORD who is our Redeemer. It is literally about who are we putting our trust in and if we put our trust solely upon the LORD I am convinced wholeheartedly that I can ask of Him and He will answer me and help me. See the trust that I have here? I am not being arrogant or boastful in myself but I boast in the LORD who can save me and will save me and not just me but anybody who calls upon the name of the LORD.

Yeah, of course you can pray directly to God whenever you want. That said, the Bible also teaches that the wise spiritual person can — if they wish — find the holiest person that they can find and ask them to pray for their intention, because “the prayer of the righteous man availeth much” (James 5:16, I believe). I collected no less than 42 Bible passages that teach that.

I mostly address direct responses to the actual arguments I made in these videos. That’s what the comboxes are supposed to be (but rarely are online). But once again we’re off down various rabbit trails. Have a nice hike! :-) But stick around. It looks like we can have some good discussions, long as they are on-topic! I like to interact with serious thinkers (and you are that).

Okay, fair enough, if you think I went down a rabbit hole. So at timestamp marker of 20:12 or so either you or your co-host asked why was God never mentioned in the whole story? Well, its because that is not the point our LORD is making with respect to the shepherds in His day. Notice, in the OT before the Messiah comes, the shepherd’s / rulers of Israel would be corrupt, breaking Gods covenant honoring with their lips but their hearts are far from [Him]. I am not going to list all the prophets in full, but certainly see Isaiah starting at around [chapter] 40, that when He comes all His adversaries will be crushed. We need to be ever so careful when reading God’s word without some type of theological filter like (systematic theology or some other abstraction) that pulls you away from the point that God is making.

See also Malachi about the coming messenger YHWH will send and will be sent in judgement against the shepherds. See also Haggai whom God explicitly calls them wicked and corrupt and will leave their house desolate. This is precisely what Jesus is speaking of in Luke and exposing the corruption of the leaders of His day, just as the prophets spoke saying would happen when the Messiah comes many would not be falling the Law many would be leading others astray. So these teachings are not about some abstraction of praying to saints, but rather exposing the Jews/Jewish religious orders that they are corrupt; they claim to follow the Law but are hypocrites; they parade themselves out to be holy and righteous to His people but are whitewashed tombs.

When you compare Luke 15 all the way through Luke 16, that is the context. Jesus is hammering them over their ungodliness even though they claim to be operating within God’s law when they are not. So anytime we see Jesus exposing the religious leaders and or ruling class of His day this is to fulfil what was spoken of when the Messiah came. Therefore, the reason why Jesus never mentions praying to God rather than to Abraham, is because Jesus is exposing their wickedness.

I agree that the element of prayer is not the main point of the story. I would say it’s like a mini-gospel: get your life right before you die and it’s too late, and heed God’s commands in the Bible, and don’t make riches your idol. It’s like the rich young ruler passage, which also — by the way — annihilates faith alone. But that has no force against what we have argued. It still remains the case that Jesus can’t teach theological error, whether it’s a parable or not. And it remains true that here petitionary prayer to a dead (and well-known and renowned) human being is taught and not opposed.

No one in this combox has overcome that. They haven’t even tried. When one doesn’t have a case, they start immediately diverting the topic to secondary, non-essential, minor issues, relative minutiae. And so that’s why we see all the rabbit trails and changing the topic to things other than what we argued, because they clearly have no reply to what we argued. Otherwise they would produce it! I predicted this in the video and openly hoped and wished that, for a change, and once in a blue moon, Protestants would do something different in grappling with this argument and the story itself: would actually take on our arguments head-on.

This also fits perfectly well within Mathew’s Gospel starting in [chapter] 23, when Jesus really hammers the religious body and is exposing their wicked ways. Luke and Mathew here are in alignment: that when the Messiah comes the shepherds would be corrupt and the Messiah would use parables in order to communicate to them as what was foretold concerning Him when He came. So when we read even the synoptic Gospels we must read them with respect to the prophets and what the political and religious shepherds who were in charge of the care of God’s sheep would be like. All of this was foretold and came to pass, just as the Lord said it would even up to the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD because God said “if you break any letter of the Law I will destroy you.” God is faithful to His word and did exactly what He said He would do if the Jews broke the covenant.

That’s all fine and dandy, and is likely true. But it’s irrelevant to our argument. As an analogy, it would be like Jesus preaching the Sermon on the Mount and throwing in at the end a tidbit about unicorns actually existing, and (as a bonus) saying that 2 + 2 = 5. Those things wouldn’t be the essence of the sermon at all, but if they were there, there would be a problem, whatever the point of the sermon was, because Jesus cannot and would not ever teach any error.

That’s the difficult spot that Protestants are in with Luke 16. Jesus teaches a terrible error, according to their existing (false) views about the invocation and intercession of departed saints and the broader issue of the nature and scope of prayer itself, so what do they do about it? There are only so many choices:

1. Deflect and ignore the problem (that’s the “solution” of all the vocally critical Protestants so far in this thread).

*

2. Start playing the theological liberal game of claiming that this aspect was an addition to the text and not genuine (Jesus didn’t actually say it). This is completely arbitrary and based on no evidence.

*

3. Start believing that the Bible itself contains errors (questioning its inspired and inerrant status).

*

4. Start believing that Jesus could commit errors because He’s not in fact God in the flesh.

*

5. Or admit that we — and Jesus, as it were — are right and that asking dead saints to intercede is biblical teaching and good and true, and face the consequences (it may mean in the long run having to become Catholic, in order to have a coherent, self-consistent view).

I believe that #5 is the key to the whole thing, and easily explains relentless Protestant behavior and rabbit-trail non sequiturs in this combox. If someone feels they can’t answer, but they can’t concede the point because of the scary implications, then that’s a very difficult place. So they ignore and deflect. But Luke 16 is what it is, and anyone who accepts the inspiration of Holy Scripture and the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ has to seriously grapple with it, wherever it might lead, and get beyond the pat, tired, irrelevant “replies”.

We’re here to assist anyone who is starting to travel the road of conversion to the Catholic Church. Me and Kenny — and our wives — have experienced that (their conversion was much more recent), and he works with The Coming Home Network, that helps people cope with these sorts of tensions and new, annoying questions that have to be adequately addressed for the sake of spiritual well-being.

My job as an apologist is to explain and defend Catholic beliefs and to show that they are more biblical, historical, and logical than other Christian or secular views that are contrary to them. Apologetics helps people to be confident and whole-hearted in what they believe, because they know why they do, and can understand it and explain it to others without fear or anxiety (due to not knowing these things).

I notice now that you did directly address one of our arguments: “you assume the idea that Abraham could do something about the Richman’s state that is not what you read from the text. Abraham tells them that his brothers have the Law and the Prophets – moreover Abraham tells him that since they won’t listen to the Law and the Prophets nor will they listen to a man raised from death. See the point?”

I don’t see it, because you are assuming that a non-answer to a prayer means that Abraham is not able to receive prayer, or do anything about it, and that the fact that they could learn from the Law and the prophets somehow has a bearing on whether Abraham can do those things (logically, it doesn’t). This breaks down, because it would apply to God also, Who also many times refuses our prayer requests in cases where they go against His will. And God oftentimes tells us or puts the thought in our minds that we can figure something out without His direct guidance (what job to take; what girl to go out with, etc.).

I think the most reasonable interpretation of the whole exchange is that the prayers aren’t answered because they are against God’s will (i.e., the same reason God refuses some prayer requests). If indeed Abraham couldn’t answer petitions (as God’s representative), then it’s most reasonable to believe that he would have said so (as we argued): something like, “why are you asking me? Don’t you know you can only ask God for these things, and must always pray directly to Him, and that I can’t do anything about this, as a mere man?!” That’s what he would have had to say and/or what Jesus would have pointed out, if Protestant objections are correct.

If Jesus were against such prayers, I submit that He would have never — in a million years — told this story in the first place, with seeming perfect agreement with it. It makes no sense at all, because He would be telling a story about prayer (among other things), and if it must only be to God, why is it that Jesus teaches that prayer to Abraham is fine and dandy, and God is never mentioned at all? It’s the very last way to teach that we ought to only pray to God. That’s why it cannot be force-fit into Protestantism — no way no how –, and why all the Protestant objections in this combox miss the very heart and essence of the force of our argument. It’s not dealt with because it cannot be, from Protestant premises.

It would be very difficult to face this as a Protestant. I understand that. It’s very difficult to change one’s mind in deep matters of God and theology. But we have to follow Jesus wherever He leads us, no?

When dealing with context, we must strive to reduce the amount of assumptions based on our presuppositions that Jesus IS speaking about prayer in this story/event. We must first understand why Jesus even speaks to them in the first place, correct? In “chapter 15” (Though a different topic we must not forget that chapter breaks were not original nor mean to be a the source of a break of an event). So in chapter 15 the Pharisees are upset with Jesus who consistently is being seen with sinners. Jesus then tells them that would you not find the lost sheep, the lost coin etc. As he uses these allegories to force the shepherds into rethinking about how they are treating “sinners” poorly.

Then we move to chapter 16 where he explains to His disciples about a rich man etc. Notice how the Pharisees — being rich themselves — are again deriding Jesus. But Jesus says, you claim to be righteous but God knows your hearts and what they deem to be of high stature is an abomination to God. Notice now Jesus then uses the Law and the Prophets and then exposing the Pharisees for breaking the Law and writing a bill of divorce, and Jesus quotes the Law as the Pharisees themselves broke the Law. So we are dealing with corrupt Law-breaking Pharisees and Jesus is exposing them.

Then he moves into the rich man and Lazarus, [and] about how the rich man did not follow the Law and the Prophets – As what did God say to Moses and His prophets? You are to care for the oppressed the orphan the widow. The rich man who could have easily cared for Lazurus, [but] did not listen to God and His prophets. They both died. So before I move on, I think it is important for us to see in context that what is being discussed isn’t about praying to saints; it is NOT about two dead men who are communicating in an intercessory role. This would be superimposing a theological disposition onto the text that the context itself is not warranted.

Then we move into the actual story where again the rich man notices Abraham and Lazarus in good spirits and he is in torment. He requests Abraham to send Lazarus to help him out. But Abraham tells him of his life and why he was there. Then the rich man asks him to send word to his brothers so that they won’t [end up there]. To this Abraham says, they have the LAW and the PROPHETS. Abraham is redirecting him to the law and the prophets. Lets take a moment and say, if this were about intercessory prayer I would expect Abraham to tell the rich man to hold tight as he will seek the Lord’s council here! Right, do you follow this?

In the book of Enoch we do in fact read of an Angel asking for intercessory prayer to Enoch and then Enoch then asks God and then God gives him the answer to be brought back to the angel. Here Abraham doesn’t say anything to God at all, I know you mentioned this but I think you are inserting this theological disposition onto the text rather than reading what is in context, with respect to how the rich man treated Lazarus while under the law. If you make any other attempt to assert that this is talking about intercessory prayer, you actually end up with more questions that you now must ask.

Why did Abraham seemingly usurp God [by] not taking that request to God? You may say, well that is because God told Abraham not to answer him (this would be of silence since we don’t a record of Abraham reaching out to God). Why would Jesus introduce a topic that is completely random and not in context with the narrative that Luke to Theophorous is trying to communicate? An example of this would like; I complain to my brother about when I watch TV you start reading a book. And then my brother says look out the window and see a rabbit building a nest? We must keep what Jesus is saying and communicating into the proper context.

And [the context is] that the Jews who were claiming to be righteous who knew the Law but weren’t following the Law and they were adding or losening [sic?] to Gods’ law, which is why Jesus brought up marriage in the first place and the Law itself about caring for God’s people — as they were the shepherds. See also the vineyard story, and then compare that to Old Testament prophecies about when the Messiah would come, how corrupt and wicked vile that generation would be as spoken by Isiah and Hagga etc etc. The point is these men were corrupt and God is going to punish ALL unrighteousness in accordance [with] the breaking of God’s Law and this was done at 70 AD when God truly made Jerusalem desolate and obliterated the temple.

As I already argued, it doesn’t matter in the slightest that prayer is not the main focus of the story. All of what you say about the focus could very well be true. If it were completely true, it would have no adverse effect on our argument at all. Zero, zilch, nada. The problem is that it’s there and doesn’t fit Protestant theology and Jesus can’t commit an error, and the Bible is inspired. How many times do I have to say this?

But I think it actually is at least partially the focus, because it takes up most of the story, after all, with the three petitions and three refusals, and explanation why he was refused. More than one thing could be going on. “Why did Abraham seemingly usurp God [by] not taking that request to God?” Because he — as God’s delegated representative — didn’t have to consult God. This was a petition ripe to be refused as improper. Abraham knew enough as a perfected saint, to refuse it on behalf of God.

“Why would Jesus introduce a topic that is completely random and not in context with the narrative that Luke to Theophorous is trying to communicate?” He doesn’t “introduce” anything. He’s recounting — according to our explanation and interpretation — an event that actually happened, and this was part of it. Good and fun discussion, but you’re still mostly on the rabbit trails, and it looks like you intend to stay on ’em!

How am I going off on a rabbit trail? I am being very thorough in our dialogue that we can’t do what you want it to do. You are making the assumption that it is teaching intercessory prayer. It is not! You also assume Abraham is God’s representative and is perfected in Hades by the way. None of this is found in the text. You are [projecting] this onto the text and not reading the verse in its context, as I have demonstrated, and I am not in any way going to assume something unless it warrants some type inference to the contrary?

Let’s use this example, Let’s say instead of them being dead, they are still alive in their physical body on earth! For the sake of argument, assume that I am the rich man and you are Abraham. Where do you get this understanding that Abraham is an active mediator between God and himself? Moreover, where do you get this notion that Abraham is in a perfected state? See the assumptions that you are creating? Now you may [say], “well when God visited him in Genesis about Sodom and Gomorrah, did Abraham not intercede to God?” I would say, yes and no. Abraham certainly spoke to God, raising concerns about the city being destroyed and how God would respond if there were some righteous living there.

But no, because God removes Lot and his daughters from the city. So even here, while God comforts Lot in saying that God would spare the whole city for the sake of one righteous but as we see God still destroys it and has Lot and his family flee. We must be extremely extremely careful, going beyond the scope of his teaching. Even if the event is true this is NOT about intercessory prayer. Again [this] is why; it is about following God’s law. Abraham knew about God’s law. and consistently redirects him to the Law.

It would be you telling me that you know God’s ways and you choose to live a life that is in disobedience to God’s ways. That is NOT you in any way mediating between myself you and God! It is just regurgitating what I already knew, if what you say [were] true. Firstly, you wouldn’t have to make an assumption about Abraham and his ability to answer prayers. You assume this. But what we actually read is much more simplistic and is easier to understand. Abraham told the rich man [that] he was in torment because he did NOT follow the law. It is literally that. If you can demonstrate in context that Jesus is teaching and sanctioning intercessory prayer you have not demonstrated it; just assumed it.

He’s asking (petitioning / praying to) Abraham to fulfill supernatural requests that — as far as we know from the Bible — only God can fulfill, either directly or through an intermediary (Abraham). Funny you should bring up Lot and Sodom. In that story, Lot prays to / petitions two angels and they grant his request. He’s on the earth, and the request is granted: thus overcoming two of the failed objections to Luke 16:

Genesis 19:15, 17-21 (RSV) 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.” . . . [17] . . . they said, “Flee for your life; do not look back or stop anywhere in the valley; flee to the hills, lest you be consumed.” [18] And Lot said to them, “Oh, no, my lords; [19] 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. [20] Behold, yonder city is near enough to flee to, and it is a little one. Let me escape there . . . and my life will be saved!” [21] He said to him, “Behold, I grant you this favor also, that I will not overthrow the city of which you have spoken.”

The two angels function as God’s messengers or intermediaries, and as such can fulfill what is essentially a prayer request: precisely as I have argued regarding Abraham. In other words, we have explicit biblical precedent. Hence, the Lutheran Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament comments on this passage:

There 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.

Another Protestant, who goes by “Grace Answers” on Facebook, chimed in when I posted notice of this article on Facebook:
*

The Main Point of the Story

Abraham says something decisive:

“They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.”

And then:

“If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.”

That is the interpretive center.

The emphasis is:

• The sufficiency of Scripture.

• The hardness of unbelief.

• Accountability to revealed truth.

The story is not about prayer mechanics. It is about rejecting revealed truth.

Descriptive vs Prescriptive

Even if someone argues, “See? A dead person is addressing Abraham.”

That would still be descriptive narrative, not prescriptive doctrine.

Many biblical narratives include actions that are not endorsed as normative:

Satan speaking to Eve.

Saul consulting Samuel via a medium.

Judas hanging himself.

Narrative does not automatically equal instruction.

For the hundredth time (the combox is full of this same sort of thing): JESUS CANNOT TEACH ERROR. That is true whether it’s a parable or not, and descriptive or prescriptive. If He were merely describing a thing without sanctioning it (or “endorsing”: it, as you say), He would have had to say so, lest He lead His followers astray. He would say, “pray only to God” etc., just as Peter and Paul corrected people trying to worship them.
*

Abraham here is the “protagonist”. He represents orthodox Jewish thought and practice. He couldn’t possibly have accepted the three petitions if it were dead set against God’s will to do so. And Abraham would have had to say the same thing: “why in the world are you praying to me?” That’s why this is so decisive. No Protestant objector has come within a million miles of refuting our argument. And that’s been true for 25 years on my blog, where I have debated the issue many times.

Your three examples are all clearly understood as wrong: Satan is the ultimate Bad Guy in the Bible. That doesn’t have to be said every time he’s mentioned. The occult, witchcraft, sorcery, divination, etc. were all clearly condemned in the Law. Suicide was understood to be a grave sin.
*

But asking a saint to fulfill a request as a “righteous” (Jas 5:16) intercessor to God and His delegated representative is notcondemned in the Bible, and we already have the example of Lot praying to two angels, too, and his request being granted (Genesis 19:15-21). I still say that if it was a grave evil, Jesus would have either 1) not told this story at all, or 2) condemned this practice that Protestants say is wicked, evil, and unbiblical.

He did neither. Therefore, the only reasonable conclusion is that the practice is perfectly biblical and okay with Him.
*

Let’s examine your two claims:

“It’s not condemned.”

“Lot prayed to angels and was granted his request.”

We’ll look at both.

First: “It’s not condemned.”

The question is not merely whether something is condemned.

The real interpretive question is:

Where is it taught, commanded, or modeled for believers as a devotional practice?

Absence of condemnation is not the same as positive authorization.

WHATEVER is in either a parable or any other teaching of Jesus is ultimately a model for believers. Some have relatively more complexity and nuance, but they can still be, and ought to be fully understood. With the proper study, it’s pretty much clear (perspicuous) what Jesus is teaching, for the most part. The normative biblical model is to correct someone if they are in grave error. Anticipating this very objection, I stated in the video:

Angels refuse worship when it is offered, because only God can be worshiped. We see that in Revelation 19:9-10 and 22:8-9. St. Peter did the same thing with Cornelius (Acts 10:25-26). So did St Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14:11-15).

Therefore, by four close biblical analogies, Abraham and Jesus both would have had to correct the error, if in fact it were an error (and a very serious one at that, according to Protestantism). But since they do not, we can safely say that it’s not an error. Moreover, there are many further biblical analogies regarding whether Jesus corrects error or not. I wrote in an article:

It’s untrue that Jesus didn’t correct misunderstandings. He did on many recorded occasions; for example: John 3:1-15 (Nicodemus and the meaning of “born again”), Matthew 13:36-51 (explanation of the parable of the tares), Matthew 15:10-20 (what defiles a man), Matthew 16:5-12 (metaphorical use of leaven), Matthew 17:9-13 (parallel of Elijah and John the Baptist), Matthew 19:24-26 (camel through the eye of a needle and rich men), Mark 4:33-34 and Luke 8:9-15 (meaning of parables in general), Luke 24:13-27 (Jesus’ teaching about Himself to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus), John 4:31-34 (metaphorical meaning of meat), John 8:21-32 (His own divinity), John 10:1-9 (parable of the Good Shepherd), and John 11:8-15 (sleep as symbolic of death).

Another example is the entire Chapter 16 of John, where the disciples did not understand, and Jesus explained at length to clarify, and then they did understand. In John 6 it was again disciples who were questioning:

John 6:60-61, 66 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” [61] But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? . . .” [66] After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.

Yet Jesus did not explain; He merely repeated with more force. And it is the only recorded instance (other than Judas) of any of His disciples ceasing to follow Him. The plausible reason is because He knew that they were questioning and would not have accepted any further explanation anyway. We know this from hard evidence:

John 6:64 “But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him. . . .

Jesus often explained and corrected His disciples who misunderstood and who were willing to listen. Therefore, John 6 makes sense only in terms of interpreting it as an instance where it was not an innocent misunderstanding (mistaking a supposed figurative discourse for a literal one), but rather, a deliberate refusal to believe (understanding but not accepting).

The argument hinges on the clear distinction between how Jesus talked to open-minded and closed-minded people, and between how He talked to disciples and the masses. It’s beyond ludicrous to think that Jesus would have allowed anyone to stop being His disciple based on a misunderstanding of supposed figurative or symbolic language for literal. He would have corrected them. (Transubstantiation, John 6, Faith and Rebellion, National Catholic Register, 12-3-17)

Lot and the Angels

The event referenced is in Book of Genesis 19.

In that narrative:

Two angels physically appear to Lot.

They speak directly with him.

They are present in visible, embodied form.

They are executing a divine mission.

Lot says:

“Oh, not so, my lord… I cannot escape to the mountain… behold now, this city is near to flee unto…”

This is not:

A devotional prayer life.

Invocation of departed saints.

An appeal to heavenly intercession.

A liturgical model.

It is a face-to-face conversation with divine messengers standing in front of him.

That is categorically different from invoking deceased saints who are not physically present.

You miss the point entirely with Lot. Not every biblical evidence or prooftext has to include every jot and tittle of a practice / belief. In this instance, the essence of the thing is present: it’s possible to ask an angel for intercession (and if on earth, why not also when they are in heaven?). In other words, what it demonstrates is that there is such a thing as praying to / asking to intercede / petitioning a creature besides God, whether an angel (Lot’s example) or dead saint Abraham (Luke 16).

*
But because that is contrary to the prior tradition of men that forbids such practice, over against the Bible, we get desperate (despite — which I appreciate — being articulate and well thought-out) objections such as yours. The implications of Catholics and Orthodox and traditional Anglicans being right about this are simply too ominous.

I appreciate the thoughtful interaction — seriously. But the claim that “whatever appears in a parable is a model for believers” just doesn’t hold consistently. In Luke 16, the rich man is in torment, attempts communication across a fixed chasm, and asks for someone to be sent back from the dead — and he’s denied. If every element is normative, then we’d have to treat all of that as a model too. Clearly that’s not how parables function. They illustrate a central point, not every narrative detail as a devotional template.
*

The point of Luke 16 is explicitly stated: “They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.” The emphasis is the sufficiency of revelation — not a new category of prayer practice.

The real issue isn’t whether something is explicitly condemned. The question is: where is invocation of saints positively instituted, taught, or modeled for believers after Christ’s resurrection? In Acts and the Epistles — where prayer is actually instructed — believers consistently pray to God. We don’t see apostles invoking Abraham, Moses, martyrs, or angels.
*

If invocation were meant to be part of the Church’s devotional life, we would expect clear apostolic teaching on it. Instead, Luke 16 shows a condemned man making a request that is refused, and Abraham pointing back to Scripture. That’s a very thin foundation for establishing a normative practice of prayer to departed saints.

It’s in the New Testament only in kernel, primitive form, but there is still more than enough to establish a pattern and cumulative argument for it that becomes strong when considered all together. And then the Church fathers followed the Catholic view on this, not the Protestant outlook.
*

I’m contending that it’s not a parable, so it doesn’t have to follow whatever conceptual or structural “rules” or patterns that are in parables. I went through this already in the dialogue that you are commenting under. Parables don’t include proper names. Even those who think this is a parable will say (if you look it up) that this is the only one that has a proper name. None of the [“other”] parables do that.
*

So I would say it’s part of a pattern in a related sense, of Jesus mentioning Old Testament persons in a literal, historical way: certainly David many times, Abraham (“before Abraham was, I am”: Jn 8:58; Mt 8:11), Noah (Lk 17:26-27), Moses (in this story and many other places), Lot’s wife (Lk 17:32), Solomon (Mt 6:29), Isaiah (Mt 13:14), Isaac and Jacob (Mt 8:11), etc. Why should this be any different? He mentioned Abraham (parables never do that), so we have no good reason not to regard it as historical.
*

Here is an example of a cumulative scriptural argument for the invocation and intercession of saints:

*
1) We ask others on earth to pray for us.

2) Angels (many passages) and dead saints (Rev 6:9-10) care very much for us.

3) Angels are aware of earthly events (Lk 15:10, 1 Cor 4:9, and many other passages); so are dead saints (Heb 12:1). Moreover, angels are extremely intelligent and can deduce our thoughts and follow our actions.

4) We observe both angels (Rev 8:3-4; cf. Tob 12:12-15) and dead saints (Rev 5:8) presenting our prayers to God, and know from other passages that they intercede for us (Jer 15:1; 2 Macc 15:13-14).

5) The Bible says that the prayers of the righteous are very powerful in their effects (Jas 5:16-18). How much more the prayers of perfected saints (Mt 22:30; 1 Jn 3:2) and always-sinless angels?

6) Men also talk to dead men (1 Sam 28:12-15; cf. Sir 46:20; Mt 17:1-3; 27:50-53; Rev 11:3) and angels on numerous occasions, and angels initiate discourse with human beings (Gen 21:17-18; when Jesus Christ was born); this is scarcely distinguishable from invocation of them.

7) Petitions made to angels are granted (Gen 19, 32, 48).

8) Therefore, it follows that we can ask either to intercede.

In another article, I summarized twenty different arguments.

I would throw the ball back in your court and note that sola Scriptura is never explicitly taught, and — I contend — not even implicitly or indirectly taught by deduction. I wrote a book, 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura. It’s not taught by the Church Fathers at all, as I have massively documented, father by father. They teach material sufficiency and inspiration of Scripture — which we agree with — , but not its formal sufficiency. Yet it’s firmly believed by all Protestants, as their rule of faith and one of the two pillars of the “Reformation.”

It’s the same with faith alone. That’s never taught. The only time it’s even mentioned, it’s condemned as false (James 2). I have 150 passages that are contrary to it. Protestant scholar Alister McGrath and Norman Geisler argued that it was basically absent from Church history altogether until the 1500s. Even then, it wasn’t even Luther, but Melanchthon, who came up with it, pulling it out of a hat, and separating sanctification from justification, as had never been done in the Bible or in the fathers. Yet it’s the other pillar and shows up in every debate about faith and salvation with Catholics.
*

As you know, the canon of the Bible is not In the Bible. Yet somehow Protestants simply agree with the tradition we have also followed, minus seven books in the OT. 66 out of 73: 90% agreement, and 100% on the New Testament: and all on the basis of Christian tradition, not the Bible.
*

Other doctrines are also briefly mentioned just a few times, and not elaborated upon, yet are very firmly believed (e.g., the virgin birth and original sin).
*

So Protestants hold to several beliefs that are only dimly indicated in the Bible or not at all, and it poses no problem for you. On the other hand, though it is primitive and not all that readily clear in terms of the biblical presentation, I can come up with a lot of biblical arguments for invocation and intercession of saints: a lot more than you can come up with for any of the five things mentioned above (one of which — the canon — both sides agree has no direct biblical proof at all).

So why should this be an issue?

As for Lot, speaking to angels physically standing in front of you is not the same thing as invoking unseen heavenly beings in devotional prayer. That’s a historical encounter, not a liturgical instruction. By that logic, Abraham bargaining in Genesis 18 or Jacob wrestling the angel would also become prayer templates.
*

I don’t see any essential difference at all. You draw a distinction without a difference. If we know that angels are in heaven and that they passionately care for us and desire to aid us, why do they have to be in front of us on earth to ask their assistance? Many if not most Protestants believe, for example, in guardian angels. Most of us have never seen them. But we can ask for their assistance because, again, we know that they are out there and that they care for us and have power to help us.
*

It’s simply arbitrary and not biblical to claim that we can’t do that unless they happen to be visible to our eyes in front of us. Even God doesn’t do that, apart from the incarnation and a theophany here and there. Most people have never seen Him. But we pray to Him. Your argument would prove too much, by reductio ad absurdum (we can’t see God, so we ought not pray to Him).

I appreciate the detailed list — and I agree Jesus often corrected misunderstandings. The issue isn’t whether Jesus ever corrected error. The issue is whether silence in a narrative automatically equals endorsement.
*

In Luke 16, Jesus is telling a story with a clear stated point: “They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.” The emphasis is the sufficiency of revelation and the hardness of unbelief. The rich man’s request is denied, a fixed chasm prevents intervention, and no mediation is granted. Nothing in the text turns Abraham into an intercessor for the living.

Your correction principle works when Jesus is addressing confused disciples about His teaching. But in Luke 16, He is not instructing believers on prayer practice — He is illustrating judgment and accountability. Not every element in a parable becomes a devotional model. Otherwise we’d also have to treat requests from the damned, communication across Hades, and attempts to send the dead back to earth as “normative.”

As for the broader pattern: when the New Testament actually instructs the Church on prayer (Acts and the Epistles), believers pray to God. We don’t see apostles invoking Abraham, Moses, martyrs, or angels. If invocation were part of the Church’s devotional structure, we would expect clear apostolic teaching on it — especially given how detailed the New Testament is about worship and prayer.

Silence doesn’t prove prohibition. But it also doesn’t establish institution. Luke 16 shows a denied request and a redirect to Scripture — not a model for praying to departed saints.

I’ve basically replied to much of this already. We both make vigorous arguments, and both (as all thinkers must) have a prior presuppositional framework within which we conceptualize and believe things. Those are very hard to change (though I did when I went from evangelical to Catholic, and before that when I moved from secular / nominal / occultic-leaning, to evangelical). People will simply have to compare our two views and decide which seems more biblical and plausible.
*

But I do have a few thoughts:

*
The fact that Abraham said no to the petitionary prayer requests is not a proof that he couldn’t or shouldn’t hear them in the first place. It’s two different things. Yet this is one of the most common Protestant replies. It fails utterly, because God refuses prayers all the time, too. The question is whether it was proper for Abraham to hear them at all. If it were not, he would have said so (per the biblical analogies of creatures refusing to accept worship), rather than sit there and listen to three petitions. He would have “nipped it in the bud”: so to speak.

*
The rich man and Lazarus story Luke 16 is either a parable — in which case it’s surrounded on both sides by several other ones — and Jesus explained parables to His disciples. But we don’t see them asking Him to explain it (at least it’s not recorded). It seems reasonable, then, to conclude that that they accepted it in toto, which would include prayer to a saint. If it’s not a parable, then Jesus was recounting a fact, and didn’t bother to correct the supposed error of praying to a saint, and given the many relevant analogies, I submit that He certainly would have done so, or not told the story at all because it contained such a serious error.
*

Prayer to God is overwhelmingly highlighted in the Bible as a sort of instance of (in my opinion) “first things first”. Moreover, asking saints to intercede to God is simply a variation of the central teaching: prayers reaching God and His ultimate answering of them, yay or nay. The utility and spiritual wisdom of it comes with a lot of reflection of what prayer is, what intercession is, whether departed saints are alive and can answer prayers, whether angels do so, and how prayers of the righteous carry much power (James 5:16).

*
That takes time, so it developed, just as every other doctrine did. Again, Jesus was front and center, so the doctrines about Him dominated the first five centuries at least. Things like invocation of saints and Mariology and ecclesiology also developed relatively slowly and roughly speaking, came chronologically after the Christology and trinitarianism were straightened out.
*

We would fully expect all of this (i.e., if we properly understand development of doctrine and its universality, and many Protestants don’t). It poses no problem for Catholicism, whereas sola Scriptura and sola fide pose huge problems for Protestants, both biblically and patristically.

I think the distinction actually matters a great deal — and it isn’t arbitrary. When Lot speaks to angels in Genesis 19, he is speaking to messengers physically present, sent on a revealed mission, in direct interaction. That’s a historical encounter initiated by God. It is not a devotional practice instituted for believers. The difference isn’t “visibility vs invisibility.” The difference is divine authorization and covenant instruction.

Okay, interesting. But where does it say in the Bible that God always has to initiate these things? Why can’t we call on an angel (particularly our guardian angel), whom we know exists, cares about is, and can help us? I see no biblical prohibition of it and no hint (unless you show me one) of God having to always initiate an encounter with an angel by causing them to appear visibly to us.
*
I say that the central pointof Lot’s prayer to angels is that that is described [or presented] as perfectly natural and permissible, which means that there is such a thing as prayer towards creatures, beyond only to God. I don’t think you get out of the momentous implications of that by positing a norm or rule that I don’t recall ever seeing in Scripture. If you can’t back it up, it carries no particular force.

We pray to God not because we see Him, but because Scripture explicitly commands us to pray to Him. Prayer to God is positively instituted throughout the Bible. That’s the key difference.

Where do you find that principle laid out in Scripture as a prescription? It may be there somewhere. I don’t recall it, myself.

Where is the positive biblical authorization to address angels or departed saints?

It’s arrived at deductively, through cumulative biblical argument, as I have illustrated. Defenders of sola Scriptura have conceded that the biblical argument for that is of the same nature. I think their arguments fail, but it shows that they have this notion of indirect and cumulative evidences, such as we are asserting regarding the saints.

The New Testament gives extensive instruction on prayer — especially in Acts and the Epistles — and it consistently directs believers to pray to God. We don’t see apostles invoking angels, Abraham, Moses, martyrs, or anyone else in heaven.

I already answered that elsewhere in our discussion.

That’s not an argument from “we can’t see them.” It’s an argument from biblical warrant. If invocation of angels or saints were part of normative Christian devotion, we would expect: • At least one clear apostolic example

I gave an explicit example from Jesus, in Luke 16! And a second from Lot and the angels (not apostolic, but inspired Bible!).

• Or one explicit instruction

• Or one passage teaching it as part of Christian prayer

Those aren’t present, but the first thing isn’t true of sola Scriptura, either. It doesn’t stop Protestants from fiercely, passionately holding it.

Instead, when angels appear in Scripture, they consistently redirect worship and devotion to God.

Yes, because all agree that God only should be worshiped. But angels are venerated in Scripture by being bowed down to, etc. They forbid outright worship and adoration.

And when prayer is taught, it is directed to God.

Not in the case of the rich man and Abraham, and Lot.

The issue isn’t whether angels exist or care. The issue is whether Scripture ever authorizes directing prayer toward them.

Lot . . .

Without positive instruction, building a devotional practice from isolated narrative encounters is extremely thin footing.

The same criterion applied to sola Scriptura would disallow it. Since Protestants won’t give it up on that basis, why should we give up on this, established by the same method?

That’s not reductio ad absurdum — it’s simply asking for clear biblical grounding for a doctrine that affects worship.

And I think I have provided more than enough to demonstrate that the kernel and essence of the practice is in Scripture. The fathers took it from there and it developed in a Catholic fashion, not a Protestant one.

*
I appreciate the thoughtful tone.
*
Very much likewise! This is one of the best, most challenging dialogues I have had a in a long time (I have greatly longed for it!): the very model of constructive, respectful discussion among Christians. I sure hope that you hang around my venues for a while. It’s a pleasure to interact with you . . .
*
You’re right that presuppositions matter — but at some point the discussion has to come back to textual warrant.
*
“Textual warrant” can take many forms: most not being “explicit”: as I have already elaborated upon. But again, you manage to accept the canon of Scripture — certainly a central and supremely important thing for all Christians, with no textual warrant at all. I have provided twenty extensive biblical arguments for the invocation of saints. That’s twenty more than what you have for the canon, which is zero.
*
On Luke 16: the issue isn’t whether Abraham could hear the rich man. The issue is whether the passage functions as authorization for believers to address departed saints. The narrative shows a denied request and a fixed chasm. It does not show Abraham functioning as an intercessor for the living, nor does it show Jesus instructing His disciples to imitate the exchange.
*
This is another common objection that fails: they’re both dead. But that’s not of the essence. The essential matter at hand is whether anyone can pray to anyone but God. We all agree that everyone: saved and damned, are alive for all eternity. No one is “dead” in the sense of annihilationism. This shows that they can pray to a departed saint — a creature who isn’t God — , by the words and actions of Abraham and the non-disagreement of Jesus. What Protestants can never get over is the fact that Jesus is teaching error here, according to their theology. That’s why I call this one of many “un-Protestant” passages. It’s quite a pickle. I don’t envy anyone in that difficult position. But the solution is so simple: admit that the Bible teaches invocation and intercession of saints and angels! Anglicans — at least some of them — do that, so it’s not utterly un-Protestant.
*
You argue that if it were improper, Abraham would have corrected it.
*
Indeed, with numerous biblical analogues and, I would say, common sense.
*
But that assumes the burden of proof runs in that direction. In Scripture, worship and prayer practices are normally established by positive instruction — not by absence of objection within a story. If every uncorrected narrative element becomes normative, that method would create many doctrines no one intends to affirm.
*
I agree in a broad sense, but it’s not universal, and you haven’t proven that it always has to be this way, with a biblical instruction saying what you just said.
*
On the parable point: even if the disciples didn’t ask for clarification, that doesn’t mean they extracted every narrative detail as devotional precedent. The explicit takeaway Jesus gives is about hearing Moses and the Prophets. That’s the interpretive center. Nothing in the text directs the Church to replicate the interaction.
*
And nothing there indicates that it would be wrong to act precisely as the rich man did: praying to — petitioning — a departed saint (and one not coincidentally known in the Bible as a great intercessor and the father of faith, no less).
*
You’re right that God sometimes refuses prayer — but we have explicit biblical authorization to pray to God. That’s the difference.
*
It is different in that way, yes, but it doesn’t follow that Abraham’s refusal meant that it was improper to pray to him. That’s the logical fallacy that Protestants attempt over and over, and I shoot it down every time.
*
Where is the comparable apostolic authorization to pray to Abraham, angels, or departed saints? When the New Testament teaches prayer (especially in Acts and the Epistles), it consistently directs believers to God. We don’t see apostles modeling invocation of saints. That absence is significant, especially given how carefully the early Church guarded worship categories.
*
It’s sanctioned in the indirect, deductive, cumulative way that I have described, and in Luke 16 and Lot’s case, by biblically sanctioned example. In Catholic thinking, anyway, asking saints to intercede is praying to God, because they’re praying to God for us. It’s still prayer to God, and so in that sense, it’s authorized by Scripture. I have 42 biblical examples of asking righteous, holy people to pray because their prayers have more effect and God “hears” them in a way that is not the case with an ordinary Joe. This is repeated explicit biblical teaching. For Catholics, this is one of many “both/and” matters. It’s not a false dichotomy, as if asking saints to help is different from reaching God in the final analysis.
*
As for doctrinal development: development can clarify what is already present. But development cannot create a devotional practice that lacks clear apostolic grounding. If invocation is part of the Church’s intended prayer structure, we should expect at least one clear New Testament example or instruction. So the core question remains simple: where is invocation positively taught as part of Christian prayer? Without that, Luke 16 remains a narrative about judgment and the sufficiency of revelation — not a foundation for devotional invocation.
*
I think I have more than adequately shown that we do have that and that we have enough in the Bible to build upon (compared to nothing at all in the case of the canon, and I say also, sola Scriptura). We’re just repeating ourselves now.
*

Thank you:

You’re welcome.

On the canon analogy: I don’t think that parallel works. The canon question is about recognizing which inspired writings already carried apostolic authority.

Yes, of course. But there are no biblical arguments for it, strictly speaking. The Bible never lists its own books, as they say, and R. C. Sproul famously noted that it’s a “fallible collection of infallible books.” Therefore, there is something outside of the infallible Bible (sola Scriptura) that has more or less absolute authority. The Protestant makes one big exception to his rule and becomes Catholic when it comes to the Bible, minus seven books. That’s the internal tension. But I have made my case for the saints by methods that are acceptable to Protestants, even in arguing for sola Scriptura (indirect, implicit, deductive, cumulative factors, and descriptive models).

Invocation of saints is a devotional practice directed toward beings other than God. Those are not the same category. One is recognition of revelation; the other is institution of worship practice. Practices that shape devotion normally require clearer grounding than historical recognition of books.

According to which Bible passage[s]? You are the Bible Alone (is infallible) people, so live by that! I say that you can’t even find a single passage or biblical argument along these lines. If not, then it’s merely Protestant sub-biblical tradition, which of course carries no binding force on anyone: especially Catholics, but even Protestants, too, if they are totally consistent within their sola Scriptura framework and rule of faith.

On Luke 16: you say the essence is whether one may pray to anyone besides God. But that is precisely the leap under debate. The text shows a man in torment addressing Abraham. It does not extract a principle from that interaction, nor does Jesus apply it to His disciples’ prayer life. The stated interpretive center is hearing Moses and the Prophets.

It doesn’t have to do that. It’s an unreasonable and extraneous demand. It’s an example of asking a man, a departed saint, Abraham, to fulfill supernatural requests that only God can fulfill or else His representative on His behalf and with His delegated authority and power. That’s why it can only be seen as prayer. It’s not like me and you talking right now. We don’t have those powers. The entire thing is disallowed by Protestants. Yet here it is . . . It’s a huge problem. And you’re working way too hard to try to overcome it. It shouldn’t be difficult at all if you’re right. But you have to expend thismuch effort, because it is indeed a serious, troubling difficulty that you have to resolve, according to your system. You have not succeeded: with all due respect.

You argue that if it were wrong, Abraham would have corrected it. But that assumes the narrative is meant to evaluate the act of address itself. The story is about irreversible judgment and rejected revelation. Abraham neither grants mediation nor models ongoing intercession for the living. The request is denied and the focus shifts back to Scripture.

Dealt with already. We’re nearing the end of this, because we’re mostly going round and round. And to me, that’s evidence of the weakness of a case, when things are reiterated, rather than fresh replies offered. Repeating things don’t make them more true, as I’m sure you’d agree.

The larger pattern still matters. When Jesus teaches prayer, He directs it to the Father. When the apostles teach prayer, they direct it to God. In Acts — where we actually see the Church praying — we don’t see invocation of Abraham, angels, or departed saints. That absence is not trivial, especially if invocation is meant to be part of ordinary Christian devotion.

This is a repeated point, too, that I have answered already, several times.

You’re right that doctrinal development occurs. But development clarifies what is already there in seed form; it doesn’t introduce a devotional practice that lacks clear apostolic example or instruction. If invocation were intended as part of Christian prayer, we would reasonably expect at least one unambiguous New Testament instance of believers doing it.

Again, I have provided more than enough, even judging by the standards and methods of how Protestants argue for some of their doctrines.

So the question remains straightforward: not whether Luke 16 permits speech to a departed figure in a story, but where the New Testament positively teaches believers to incorporate invocation into their prayer life. Without that, Luke 16 reads naturally as a narrative about judgment and the sufficiency of revelation — not a blueprint for devotional address to saints.

You can have the last word. Unless there is something new that I haven’t addressed, I’m done at this juncture. This can’t go on forever. It has been very excellent, and I thank you for the best debate I have had in memory. Obviously, I think you’re wrong, and that I have the better argument, but you have argued your case exceedingly well, and thoughtfully, and I always admire and respect that: andwith a complete absence of any rancor or insult, which is rare as hen’s teeth online anymore.

You’re asking a fair question: where does Scripture say God must “initiate” these encounters? The answer isn’t that there’s a verse saying, “God must always initiate.” The principle is broader: in Scripture, practices that belong to worship and devotion are established by revelation — not by extrapolation from narrative events.

There are two passages, that were mentioned in my 8-point exposition on the topic that I cited:

Revelation 5:8 (RSV) . . . the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints;

Revelation 8:3-4 And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; [4] and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God.

Pope Benedict XVI wrote about these:

In the vision of the Book of Revelation this prayer of petition is portrayed by an important detail: “the 24 elders” and “the four living beings” hold in their hands, together with the harp that accompanies their singing, “golden bowls full of incense” (5:8a) which, as is explained “are the prayers of the saints” (5:8b), namely, of those who have already reached God but ALSO OF ALL OF US WHO ARE JOURNEYING ON. And we see that in front of God’s throne an angel is holding a golden censer in his hand into which he continues to put grains of incense, that is OUR PRAYER, whose sweet fragrance is offered together with the prayers that rise to God (cf. Rev 8:1-4). It is a symbolism that tells us how all our prayers — with every possible limitation, effort, poverty, dryness and imperfection they may have — are so to speak purified and reach God’s heart. In other words we can be sure that there is no such thing as superfluous or useless prayers; no prayer is wasted. And prayers are answered, . . . (General Audience, 9-12-12)

Dr. Ludwig Ott, in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (TAN Books, 1974) commented on this (cross-referencing Tobit 12:12): “The propriety of invoking them logically follows from the fact of their intercession” (p.318). He also wrote on the same page: “Holy Writ does not explicitly refer to the veneration and invocation of saints, but it asserts the principle out of which Church teaching and practice developed.” He notes that in 2 Mac. 15:11-16, “the High Priest Onias and the Prophet Jeremias, intercede with God for the Jewish people and for the Holy City. Cf. Jer. 15, 1.”
*

But back to Revelation 5:8 and 8:3-4. In Revelation 5:8, the “twenty-four elders” (usually regarded by commentators as dead human beings) appear to have other people’s prayers, to present to God. So the obvious question is: what are they doingwith them? Why does Revelation present dead saints presenting the prayers of other saints to God?

*
If they have them, it stands to reason as a rather straightforward deduction, that they heard the initial prayers as well, or at least were granted knowledge of them in some fashion, granted ultimately through the power of God. Revelation 8:3-4 is even more explicit. Rather than equate incense and prayers, it actually distinguishes between them, and presents the scenario that the prayers and incense are presented together.
*

So the question, again, is: what is this angel doing with “prayers of the saints” — presenting them to God? It seems clear to me that they have heard the prayers, and are involved as intercessors. Angels are extremely intelligent beings. We know that they rejoice when a sinner repents. They have knowledge in ways that we do not; above our comprehension. This is biblical proof that dead saints and angels both somehow have our prayers and present them to God. They are acting as intercessors and intermediaries. How do they hear our prayers? God gives them the power to do so because they are in heaven and therefore, outside of time. They are aware of earthly events. We know that from Hebrews 12:1 (“we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses”), and from Revelation 6:9-10, where dead saints are praying for those on the earth.
*

It’s also formal “liturgical worship in heaven, and Revelation 8:3: “the prayers of allthe saints” might imply that angels have something to do with all prayers.

We don’t assume we may direct prayer toward any being simply because that being exists, cares, and has power. Angels exist. Elders in heaven exist. Departed saints are alive with God. The question is not capability — it’s authorization.

I say that these two passages might be construed as offering what you are demanding.

When Scripture teaches prayer explicitly, it consistently directs it to God. Jesus teaches His disciples how to pray — and directs them to the Father. The apostles teach the churches how to pray — and direct them to God. That’s positive instruction. That’s prescription.

All prayer that goes through saints is on the way to Him. It’s just a more indirect method of getting there.

By contrast, Lot in Genesis 19 is speaking to messengers physically present, carrying out a revealed mission. That is a historical interaction within a divinely orchestrated event. It is never generalized into a devotional model for believers. The text doesn’t say, “Therefore, believers may direct petitions toward angels.” It simply narrates what happened.

It’s not every jot and tittle, but we wouldn’t expect an event very early on in Genesis to be that. What it is, is consistent with the Catholic view, and it’s not condemned.

You say the “central point” is that prayer toward creatures is shown to be permissible. But that’s precisely the step under dispute. The text never labels Lot’s speech as “prayer” in the devotional sense, nor does it extract a principle from it. It records a conversation in an extraordinary circumstance.

It doesn’t have to do any of that. It’s just a biblical example of prayer to a creature. The Jews were just starting to learn about God and prayer, for heaven’s sake, and you expect an advanced prayer manual?

If we move from “a narrative contains speech directed toward a creature” to “therefore believers may institute devotional petition toward creatures,” we’re building doctrine from silence and inference — not from instruction.

If we move from “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” [2 Tim 3:16-17] to a full-fledged sola Scriptura view that is not present in that text or any other, we’re building doctrine from silence and inference and man-made tradition, in reaction to another much more established apostolic tradition— not from instruction or the Bible itself.
*

And that’s the core issue: where does the New Testament ever instruct believers to address angels or departed saints as part of their prayer life? Not where does it forbid it. Not where does it fail to interrupt it. But where does it positively teach it?

It does in all the ways I have detailed, but they’ll never be good enough for you, because you want explicit, fully-developed texts: typical of Protestants. Yet nowhere does the Bible state that that is required to believe in anything. Scripture requires things to be in harmony with — consistent with — other known tenets of the Bible.

When something affects worship, the biblical pattern is clarity. We see that clarity with prayer to God. We do not see it with invocation of angels or saints.

That’s not arbitrary. It’s simply asking that a devotional practice have the same level of scriptural grounding as the practices the apostles actually taught the Church.

Nothing new here, and Protestants don’t apply this criterion to many of their doctrines; most notably, sola Scriptura.

Thank you for bringing Revelation 5 and 8 into the discussion. Those are important texts. In Revelation 5:8 and Revelation 8:3–4, we see heavenly beings presenting “the prayers of the saints” before God. I agree with you on this much: the imagery clearly shows that heaven is aware of earthly prayer and that God uses angelic and heavenly imagery in the presentation of those prayers. But here is the key distinction: Those passages show heavenly beings handling or presenting prayers that are already directed to God. They do not show believers directing prayers to the elders or to angels.
*
That’s not so certain as you may think. I think my question is still valid: what are they doing with them if they were directed to God and not even through the angel? God must somehow be delegating responsibility in some sense, for those prayers, to His angels, either having been asked by human beings to help, or involving them in the process whether they were asked or not. Either way, it’s a creature being involved in our prayers to God: the very thing you said that the Bible didn’t prescribe or describe. But I think, prima facie, it’s most sensible to conclude that the angels are being intermediaries, rather than simply given a batch of these prayers from saints, and presenting them to God, which seems to have little meaning: God can accept them direct from us; He doesn’t need angels to be in that process, unless it has some participatory meaning and function.
*
The direction of prayer in the text is still vertical — toward God. The elders and the angel are depicted as participating in the heavenly liturgy, not as recipients of prayer.
*
It can’t be ruled out that they were involved. That’s just as plausible as your take (I think, much more so). They are functioning as intercessory intermediaries.
*
That is an important difference.
*
Not really (in terms of this debate), because we agree with you that God is always the final or ultimate recipient of all prayers.
*
Revelation is highly symbolic. Incense represents prayer. Bowls contain prayers. An angel adds incense to prayers. This imagery reflects temple language (cf. Psalm 141:2), where incense symbolizes prayer rising to God. It shows mediation in the sense of heavenly participation — not that believers are instructed to address those beings. If Revelation 5 or 8 were teaching invocation, we would expect something like:• “The saints prayed to the elders.” • Or “The saints asked the angel to intercede.” • Or an example of a believer addressing them. Instead, the prayers belong to “the saints” and are presented before God.
*
We should not expect that, seeing that the communion of saints was still at a very primitive level at the time the Bible was written (though the OT Jews possessed a decent knowledge of it). We would expect exactly what we see, just as we see the same skeletal framework of things like the Two Natures of Jesus and original sin and Mariology.
*
Even in Revelation 6:9–10, where the martyrs cry out, they cry out to God: “How long, O Lord?” They do not function as recipients of earthly prayers; they themselves pray to God.
*
That’s an example of their concern for us, and awareness of earthly events. But I agree with Ott, from simple deduction (usin’ the ol’ noggin): “The propriety of invoking them logically follows from the fact of their intercession.”
*
Hebrews 12:1 calls them “witnesses,” but witnesses in context are examples of faith — not described as hearing petitions.
*
The fact of their intense awareness (as Protestant commentators like Marvin Vincent, Word Studies in the NT, have commented on the passage) increases the likelihood and plausibility of receiving petitions for intercession by logical extension. Vincent wrote (quite remarkably for a Presbyterian): “The vast host of the heroes of faith . . . watches the contest from the encircling tiers of the arena, compassing and overhanging it like a cloud, filled with lively interest and sympathy, and lending heavenly aid.”
*
Luke 16 gives an explicit example of that very thing, and Lot prayed to the angels. So it exists. You can “water that down” with a hundred qualifications, but they are still there, and it’s pretty straightforward what is going on.
*
So the pattern remains consistent: God is the addressee of prayer. Heaven may be involved in the presentation. But Scripture never shows believers directing petitions to heavenly creatures.
*
Luke 16, Lot (ad nauseam) . . . At this point, we’re like little kids going, “is SO! Is NOT!” LOL
*
The question is not whether angels or saints are aware. The question is whether Scripture ever instructs believers to address them. Revelation shows heavenly participation in God’s throne room. It does not show earthly Christians invoking them. That’s the distinction I’m trying to preserve. If invocation were intended as part of Christian devotion, we would expect at least one clear New Testament example of believers praying to a saint or angel. Revelation gives us imagery of heavenly presentation — but not an instance of earthly invocation. That’s why I still see Revelation 5 and 8 as consistent with prayer directed to God alone, even while heaven participates in its presentation.
*
I’ve made my answer; most of ’em several times now. I have to depart. But if you have more to say (that’s new, not more reiterations), feel free. My blog paper is over 12,700 words now. I have to stop. It’s long enough for my readers!Thanks again for a great, thought-provoking debate. You have stimulated me to make new arguments about this that I never made or thought of before. That’s what I love about debate: how one can learn from the other guy, even short of being persuaded otherwise.***Stefano Ferrero stated on my Facebook page:

Dave, this example would work well if there were a living person speaking to a dead person. It would be very convincing if the rich man had spoken to Abraham before he died. But the rich man is dead, as Abraham died. Scripture forbids the living from speaking to the dead, but it does not forbid the dead from speaking to other dead people. Two dead people can speak to each other, and this does not violate Protestant theology. In fact, it clearly confirms it: David knows that one day he would see his dead son again; implicitly, he could communicate with him, but he could not do so before then.

2 Samuel 12:23 Can I bring him back? I will go to him, but he will not return to me!

Why didn’t David speak to his son right away if he could hear him? If someone is honest and reads their Bible, they understand that Luke 16 teaches us that a damned person can communicate with a saved person, not that someone on earth can communicate with a saved person.

Why do Moses and Elijah appear at the transfiguration (Mt 17:1-4), if “Scripture forbids the living from speaking to the dead”? Why would God allow that? Peter and the disciples quite possibly talked to them. Jesus never told them, “get away from Moses and Elijah! That’s necromancy!”

In Matthew 27:52-53, it says, “many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.” It’s quite reasonable to assume that they talked to people.
*
The risen Jesus talked to hundreds or thousands of people. Every interaction of people on earth with the risen Jesus (Who died, after all!) would be sinful, by this “reasoning.”

Jesus spoke to the dead when He raised Lazarus:

John 11:43-44 (RSV) When he had said this, he cried with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out.” [44] The DEAD man came out, . . .

St. Peter did the same thing when he raised the young girl:

Acts 9:36-37, 40-41 Now there was at Joppa a disciple named Tabitha, which means Dorcas. She was full of good works and acts of charity. [37] In those days she fell sick and died; . . . [40] But Peter put them all outside and knelt down and prayed; then turning to THE BODY he said, “Tabitha, rise.” And she opened her eyes, and when she saw Peter she sat up. [41] And he gave her his hand and lifted her up. Then calling the saints and widows he presented her alive.

So did other disciples, since Jesus commanded them to “Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons” (Mt 10:8).
*
Saul spoke to the prophet Samuel after he died (1 Samuel 28:3-25). It occurred in conjunction with a forbidden seance, but nevertheless, the real Samuel appeared and gave a true prophecy: that Saul would die the next day. If God absolutely forbade any such contact, then Samuel simply wouldn’t have appeared.

Though it’s more speculative, there are also the “two witnesses” of Revelation:

Revelation 11:3, 7-12 And I will grant my two witnesses power to prophesy for one thousand two hundred and sixty days, clothed in sackcloth. . . . [7] And when they have finished their testimony, the beast that ascends from the bottomless pit will make war upon them and conquer them and kill them, [8] and their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which is allegorically called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified. [9] For three days and a half men from the peoples and tribes and tongues and nations gaze at their dead bodies and refuse to let them be placed in a tomb, [10] and those who dwell on the earth will rejoice over them and make merry and exchange presents, because these two prophets had been a torment to those who dwell on the earth. [11] But after the three and a half days a breath of life from God entered them, and they stood up on their feet, and great fear fell on those who saw them. [12] Then they heard a loud voice from heaven saying to them, “Come up hither!” And in the sight of their foes they went up to heaven in a cloud.

How is that relevant? It’s because several prominent Protestant commentators and some early Church fathers hold that these two men were either Elijah and Enoch (both men who didn’t die) or Moses and Elijah (the two who appeared at the transfiguration), who appear on the earth again for 3 1/2 years, prophesying and talking to hundreds, if not thousands of people. Lots of “contact” there!

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary: De Burgh thinks Elijah and Moses will again appear, as Mal 4:5, 6 seems to imply (compare Mt 17:11; Ac 3:21). Moses and Elijah appeared with Christ at the Transfiguration, which foreshadowed His coming millennial kingdom. As to Moses, compare De[ut] 34:5, 6; Jude 9. Elias’ genius and mode of procedure bears the same relation to the “second” coming of Christ, that John the Baptist’s did to the first coming [Bengel]. Many of the early Church thought the two witnesses to be Enoch and Elijah.

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges: The traditional view of these, dating from the second century, is that they are Enoch and Elijah—the two prophets who, having (for a time) finished their work on earth, have left it without death: but who, since “it is appointed for all men once to die,” will, as is here revealed, come on earth again, to prophesy and suffer death in the days of Antichrist. As to Elijah, there seems to be little doubt that this view is true. The prophecy of Malachi 4:5 has indeed received a fulfilment in the mission of the Baptist (St Luke 1:17). But St Matthew 17:11-12 perhaps implies that this fulfilment is not the final one—especially when compared with St John 1:21. Really the plain sense of these passages seems to be, that Elijah will actually be sent before the second Coming of Christ, as one in his spirit and power was before His first. . . . the internal evidence of Scripture itself points rather to Moses and Elijah being the two witnesses. Their names are coupled in the prophecy of Malachi 4:4-5, as well as in the history of the Transfiguration: and Revelation 11:6 ascribes to these prophets the plague actually inflicted by Moses, as well as that by Elijah.

Tertullian (c. 160-c. 225) in his Treatise on the Soul, chapter 50, wrote:

Enoch no doubt was translated [Gen 5:24; Heb 11:5], and so was Elijah [2 Kings 2:11]; nor did they experience death: it was postponed, (and only postponed,) most certainly: they are reserved for the suffering of death, that by their blood they may extinguish Antichrist. [Revelation 11:3]

That’s eight counter-examples (three involving Jesus Himself). So this assertion is false and wrong. Clearly, not ALL communication (and/or contact) between the living and the dead is forbidden in the Bible; only the practices of divination, sorcery, necromancy, and the occult, which are essentially different in many ways, compared to the Catholic communion of saints.

***

Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become a Catholic or to return to the Catholic Church, or better understand some doctrines and why Catholics believe them. If you believe my full-time apostolate is worth supporting, please seriously consider a much-needed monthly or one-time financial contribution. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV).

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle and 100% tax-deductible donations if desired), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information.

You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my two YouTube channels, Catholic Bible Highlights and Lux Veritatis, in partnership with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos), and/or by signing up to receive notice for new articles on this blog. Just type your email address on the sidebar to the right (scroll down quite a bit), where you see, “Sign Me Up!” Thanks a million!

***

Photo credit: Print illustrating the story of the rich man and Lazarus, from the Gospel of Luke, by Gustave Doré (1832-1883) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: Exchange with a Protestant who insists that Luke 16 (the story of Lazarus and the rich man in Hades) does not sanction prayer to a saint at all, when it clearly does do so.