![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2024\/01\/CloudsSaints3.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nSeth Kasten<\/strong> (see his blog<\/a>) is a member of the Lutheran Church\u2013Missouri Synod. This is one of a series of replies to his book, Against the Invocation of Saints: An Apology for the Protestant Doctrine of Prayer over and against the Doctrine of the Eastern Orthodox Church<\/em><\/a> (Royal Oak, Michigan: Scholastic Lutherans, 2023). I will be using RSV for Bible passages unless otherwise noted. Words from his book will be in blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n See other installments:<\/p>\n The 16th century discussions between T\u00fcbingen and Constantinople lay a basic foundation for arguments on both sides. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The T\u00fcbingen theologians respond[ed] by saying that the saints cannot hear us and that attributing such abilities to them is unscriptural on the grounds of Isaiah 63:16 and 2 Kings 2:9. . . . They appeal again to Isaiah 63:16 to demonstrate the inability of saints to hear us . . . (pp. 11-12)<\/span><\/p>\n These theologians, in my opinion, took Isaiah 63:16 out of context. It has little or nothing to do with the communion of saints or the question of whether they (including Abraham) could \u201chear\u201d us or not.<\/p>\n Isaiah 63:16<\/strong> For thou art our Father, though Abraham does not know us and Israel does not acknowledge us; thou, O LORD, art our Father, our Redeemer from of old is thy name.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Here are a few classic Protestant commentaries on this passage:<\/p>\n Ellicott\u2019s Commentary for English Readers<\/em><\/a>: The passage is striking as being an anticipation of the New Testament thought, that the Fatherhood of, God rests on something else than hereditary descent, and extends not to a single nation only, but to all mankind. Abraham might disclaim his degenerate descendants, but Jehovah would still recognise them.<\/p>\n Barnes\u2019 Notes on the Bible<\/a><\/em>: Abraham was the father of the nations \u2013 their pious and much venerated ancestor. His memory they cherished with the deepest affection, and him they venerated as the illustrious patriarch whose name all were accustomed to speak with reverence. The idea here is, that though even such a man \u2013 one so holy, and so much venerated and loved \u2013 should refuse to own them as his children, yet that God would not forget his paternal relation to them. A similar expression of his unwavering love occurs in Isaiah 49:15 : \u2018Can a woman forget her sucking child?\u2019 . . . The language here expresses the unwavering conviction of the pious, that God\u2019s love for his people would never change; . . .<\/p>\n Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary<\/a><\/em>: It had been the besetting temptation of the Jews to rest on the mere privilege of their descent from faithful Abraham and Jacob (Mt 3:9; Joh 8:39; 4:12); now at last they renounce this, to trust in God alone as their Father, notwithstanding all appearances to the contrary. Even though Abraham, our earthly father, on whom we have prided ourselves, disown us, Thou wilt not (Isa 49:15; Ps 27:10).<\/p>\n Geneva Study Bible<\/a><\/em>: Though Abraham would refuse us to be his children, yet you will not refuse to be our father.<\/p>\n 2 Kings 2:9<\/strong> When they had crossed, Eli\u2019jah said to Eli\u2019sha, \u201cAsk what I shall do for you, before I am taken from you.\u201d And Eli\u2019sha said, \u201cI pray you, let me inherit a double share of your spirit.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is clever. The idea is that Elijah was implying that he couldn\u2019t answer petitionary requests after his death. But I think it\u2019s simply an example of the practice of blessings before death. Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament<\/a> <\/em>states for this passage:<\/p>\n The request of Elisha is evidently based upon Deuteronomy 21:17 [\u201cgiving him a double portion of all that he has\u201d], where \u05d1\u05bc \u05e4\u05bc\u05d9\u05be\u05e9\u05c1\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd denotes the double portion which the first-born received in (of) the father\u2019s inheritance, . . . Elisha, resting his foot upon this law, requested of Elijah as a first-born son the double portion of his spirit for his inheritance. Elisha looked upon himself as the first-born son of Elijah in relation to the other \u201csons of the prophets\u201d [see 11 examples<\/a> of this phrase in 1-2 Kings], inasmuch as Elijah by the command of God had called him to be his successor and to carry on his work. The answer of Elijah agrees with this: \u201cThou hast asked a hard thing,\u201d he said, because the granting of this request was not in his power, but in the power of God. He therefore made its fulfilment dependent upon a condition, which did not rest with himself, but was under the control of God: \u201cif thou shalt see me taken from thee . . ., let it be so to thee; but if not, it will not be so.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In this understanding, Elijah was extending the customary Jewish blessing, right before death. It has no necessary relation to possible petitions after death. The blessing had to be made before Elijah went up to heaven (in effect, dying), according to Jewish custom.<\/p>\n They provide quotes against the cult of the saints from Epiphanius, Basil, and Chrysostom, . . . (p. 12)<\/span><\/p>\n I don\u2019t know what these quotes are, but I have a few contrary ones of my own, from my book that I edited, The Quotable Eastern Church Fathers: Distinctively Catholic Elements in Their Theology<\/i><\/a>\u00a0<\/i>(July 2013, 303 pages):<\/p>\n . . . not that we may omit supplicating the saints, . . .. (St. John Chrysostom, Homily V on Matthew 1:22-23<\/em>, 8<\/a>; NPNF1-10)<\/p>\n [I]t is possible to communicate after death even with the departed, with those who are asleep, who are already crowned, who want for nothing. (St. John Chrysostom, Homily III on 2 Timothy, v. 1:13-18<\/em><\/a>; NPNF1-13)<\/p>\n I acknowledge also the holy apostles, prophets, and martyrs; and I invoke them to supplication to God, that through them, that is, through their mediation, the merciful God may be propitious to me, and that a ransom may be made and given me for my sins. Wherefore also I\u00a0honour\u00a0and\u00a0kiss\u00a0the features of their images, inasmuch as they have been handed down from the\u00a0holy\u00a0apostles, and are not forbidden, but are in all our churches. (St. Basil the Great, Letter #360<\/a>; NPNF2-8)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Christians are bound to the scriptures and should seek the wisdom of the church fathers and should shape their practice accordingly, . . . and as I seek to demonstrate in this work, scripture and the church fathers do not allow for such a practice [invocation of saints]<\/span> even in the highly qualified form. (p. 15)<\/span><\/p>\n We depart, however, from the EO [\u201cEastern Orthodox\u201d: as throughout]<\/span> on the practice of invocation of the saints\u2013 praying to the saints, or asking them for prayer. . . . The saints pray for us, we may pray for them, but it does not follow that we may pray to<\/em> the saints. (p. 18)<\/span><\/p>\n And this is what I will attempt to refute in these replies, following the model already observed above: counter-exegesis and competing patristic quotations. All doctrines develop, but by and large, the Church fathers accepted the practice of invocation of the saints. If it is objected that this was a late development, I reply that the canon of Scripture was also a \u201clate\u201d development: coming, as it did, in the end of the fourth century. Other doctrines, such as sola Scriptura<\/em> and sola fide<\/em> (the two \u201cpillars\u201d of the Protestant Revolt) are, I would argue, absent altogether from Scripture and patristic consensus. But this doesn\u2019t stop Protestants from believing both, and making them central in their rule of faith and soteriology.<\/p>\n Importantly, there is a theme that we are unworthy of coming to Christ and must instead turn to saints in prayer.\u00a0 (p. 22)<\/span><\/p>\n Seth then cites a prayer along these lines from St. Ephraim:<\/p>\n Through your pure and acceptable supplications, persuade the righteous Judge to have compassion on me\u2026. Set my ragged life on a straight path that I might stand blamelessly before the Lord, having you as my mediator and helper. (p. 22)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Seth sums up: \u201cThe EO practice is not strictly asking saints for prayers but is also a reliance on saints as mediators or instruments of God\u2019s grace, . . .\u201d (p. 23)<\/span><\/p>\n This is an entirely scriptural prayer based on a thoroughly scriptural teaching (as I will now demonstrate). The Bible throughout calls for intercessory prayer, and teaches that the prayers of more righteous people are relatively far more powerful<\/a>. So we go (or can<\/em> and should<\/em> go) to the especially righteous person, who in turn goes to God on our behalf. There is no reason why we can\u2019t do this with departed saints (and I will defend that in depth later). It makes even more sense than asking for prayer from people on earth, seeing that they are perfected in heaven and in profound union with God (making their prayers all the more powerful). We ask saints in heaven to intercede, because their prayers to God have a far greater effect or efficacy than ours do. Where is this notion found in the Bible? It\u2019s an undeniable teaching found in lots<\/em> of places:<\/p>\n This is notable in that God Himself<\/em>\u00a0is telling a person\u00a0not to pray for himself<\/em>, so that he \u201cshall live\u201d, but that a holier person (a \u201cprophet\u201d: Abraham) should do so, according to God\u2019s own revealed will, in both special and written revelation (the Bible). Abraham was the holier person. He prayed, and good things happened as a result, because it was all according to God\u2019s will. Abimelech was told by God Himself that Abraham would pray for him; therefore, he didn\u2019t go \u201cstraight to God\u201d in prayer.<\/span><\/p>\n 1 Samuel 12:19, 23<\/strong> And all the people said to Samuel, \u201cPray for your servants to the LORD your God, that we may not die; for we have added to all our sins this evil, to ask for ourselves a king.\u201d . . . [23] \u201cMoreover as for me, far be it from me [Samuel] that I should sin against the LORD by ceasing to pray for you; . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n Why was Moses\u00a0different<\/em>? He was set apart; he was holy, he was the great deliverer, and had a direct, profound \u201cface to face\u201d relationship with God (Ex 33:11; Dt 34:10-11). Likewise, Moses\u2019 brother Aaron atoned for his people and stopped a plague (Num 16:46-48). Phinehas likewise atoned and prevented God\u2019s wrath from \u201cconsum[ing] the people of Israel\u201d (Num 25:11-13). King Zedekiah asked Jeremiah the prophet to \u201cPray for us to the LORD our God\u201d (Jer 37:3; cf. 42:20). Simon asked St. Peter to\u00a0 \u201cPray for me to the Lord, that nothing of what you have said may come upon me\u201d (Acts 8:24). Peter later wrote in his own epistle: \u201cthe eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous, and his ears are open to their prayer\u201d (1 Pet 3:12; cf. Ps 34:17; Jn 9:31; 1 Jn 3:22).<\/p>\n 1 Kings 13:6<\/strong>\u00a0And the king said to the man of God, \u201cEntreat now the favor of the LORD your God, and pray for me, that my hand may be restored to me.\u201d And the man of God entreated the LORD; and the king\u2019s hand was restored to him, and became as it was before.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Once again, a \u201cman of God\u201d (probably an unnamed prophet) had more powerful and efficacious prayers. King Jeroboam \u2014 though a wicked king like all of the kings of northern Israel \u2014 still nevertheless recognized this true principle.<\/p>\n Job 42:8-9<\/strong> \u201c. . . my servant Job shall pray for you, for I will accept his prayer . . ..\u201d [9] . . . and the LORD accepted Job\u2019s prayer.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Job\u2019s prayers had more power because he was described in the book bearing his name (in God\u2019s eyes) as \u201cblameless\u201d (1:1, 8; 2:3). God specifically stated that \u201cI will accept his<\/em><\/strong> prayer.\u201d He didn\u2019t<\/em> say: \u201cpray straight to Me<\/em><\/strong> so I can be merciful.\u201d<\/p>\n The biblical data in this regard can thus be summarized as follows:<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n Practical Matters<\/em><\/strong>: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ free online articles (the most comprehensive \u201cone-stop\u201d Catholic apologetics site) or\u00a0fifty-five books<\/a>\u00a0have helped you (by God\u2019s grace) to decide to\u00a0become Catholic<\/a>\u00a0or to\u00a0return to the Church<\/a>,\u00a0or better understand some doctrines and\u00a0why<\/em>\u00a0we believe them<\/a>.<\/p>\n 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\u2019m always in need of more funds: especially\u00a0monthly<\/em>\u00a0support. \u201cThe laborer is worthy of his wages\u201d (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a\u00a0full-time Catholic apologist<\/a>, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.<\/p>\n PayPal donations<\/a>\u00a0are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. Here\u2019s also\u00a0a second page to get to PayPal<\/a>. You\u2019ll see the term \u201cCatholic Used Book Service\u201d, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including\u00a0Zelle<\/a>), see my page:\u00a0About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong \/ Donation Information<\/a>.\u00a0Thanks a million<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0from the bottom of my heart!<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Photo credit:<\/strong> geralt<\/a> (4-19-18)<\/span> [Pixabay<\/a> \/ Pixabay Content License<\/a>]<\/p>\n Summary<\/em>: One of my series of replies to Lutheran Seth Kasten on the invocation of saints. I address his objections and biblical and patristic arguments against the practice.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Seth Kasten (see his blog) is a member of the Lutheran Church\u2013Missouri Synod. This is one of a series of replies to his book, Against the Invocation of Saints: An Apology for the Protestant Doctrine of Prayer over and against the Doctrine of the Eastern Orthodox Church (Royal Oak, Michigan: Scholastic Lutherans, 2023). I will […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":79260,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[415,206],"tags":[201,371,1451,18354,195,18357],"class_list":["post-79251","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-lutheranism","category-saints-purgatory-penance","tag-communion-of-saints","tag-intercession-of-the-saints","tag-invocation-of-the-saints","tag-lutherans-invocation-of-the-saints","tag-prayer","tag-seth-kasten"],"yoast_head":"\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n