A Silent Revolution: Invocation Of The Saints (Reply 3)

I want to again thank Matt for his time discussing this important topic. Below, I offer my thoughts on Matt’s arguments and observations. Let’s get started.

An Appeal to the Incarnation Concerns Veneration, not Intercession or Invocation

Dennis’s main premise is:

Through the Incarnation, the Saints share in a measure of God’s glory (dulia).

The above merely represents a part of my argument. In my first article, I offered a counter to Matt’s contention that Saint and Marian veneration came about through pagan accretion. I appealed to the Incarnation as a better and more organic source of development.

…veneration of the Saints grew naturally out of an understanding of deified nature of gloried man, not out of some accretion from pagan religion or philosophy.

Matt specifically asks:

…how does this special glory place the saints and Mary in an intercessory role for believers? Furthermore (and most importantly), how does this establish the normative practice of praying to saints?

Just as through the Incarnation we here on earth share in an intercessory role for fellow believers, Saints and the Virgin Mary in heaven also share in an intercessory role to a greater degree. Regardless, my main point in appealing to Incarnation concerns veneration, not intercession or invocation.

Normative Practice of Praying to Saints (NPPS)

Even if I grant that the saints and Mary should get a special honor and that they play an intercessory role in heaven, it doesn’t follow that a normative practice of praying to saints has been established. But the establishment of this normative practice is precisely what we are discussing. I look forward to seeing an argument for this conclusion.

Again, my intention was not to establish a normative practice of praying to Saints (an invocation requesting intercessory prayer) in my appeal to the Incarnation. My appeal to the Incarnation concerns Saint and Marian veneration. If Matt wants to focus on intercession and concede that he sees no issue with veneration, I will move on to focus solely on NPPS as intercession and invocation moving forward.

Matt’s Case Against the Normative Practice of Prayer to the Saints

Matt offers his case thusly:

I am working FROM the following claims:

The Bible is the word of God. What it teaches is true and authoritative. (Catholics agree)

The Bible is composed of the books found in the Protestant canon. (Catholics disagree)

My overall argument goes like this: (NPPS = normative practice of praying to saints)

1. NPPS is not taught in the Protestant canon.

2. NPPS is not taught in the first 200 years of the church.

3. There are reasons from the Protestant canon for thinking that NPPS is not a legitimate Christian practice.

4. There are reasons from the early church fathers to think that NPPS is not a legitimate Christian practice. (perhaps I’ll deal with this more in a later post)

I address each point below.

Response to Point 1 (NPPS is not Taught in the Protestant Canon)

In my second reply to Matt, I offered examples from Scripture of people (the Virgin Mary and St. John the Apostle) talking to angels and deceased Old and New Testament saints. Matt dismisses these examples, because these living individuals did not “invoke” or take the initiative to communicate with angels or the deceased. The Virgin Mary, Matt contends, received an unlooked-for visitor. Furthermore, St. John and Judas Maccabeus both received visions. Again, it appears Matt’s concerns are invocation, not communication.

Thus far, Matt’s ire appears solely focused on invocation, not veneration or communication.

Response to Point 2 (NPPS is not Taught in the First 200 Years of the Church)

Moreover, for this point, Matt appeals to Catholic apologist Joe Heschmeyer’s observation that we lack solid evidence for NPPS in the first 200 years of the Church. Now, in my second article of this series, I made the following observation:

Both Protestants and Catholics must address the silence concerning the veneration of the Saints (dulia) and the Virgin Mary (hyperdulia) in the earliest centuries of the Church, especially when compared to the 4th century and beyond.

So, I fully agree with Heschmeyer on this point. However, I do not agree with Matt’s take on Heschmeyer. Matt takes Heschmeyer’s claim that we lack “clear” evidence in the first 200 years to mean “NPPS is not taught in the first 200 years of the Church.” We both must address the silence in those years; however, this silence does not mean that it “is not taught.”

Also, consider that our earliest evidence for Marian invocation appears around 250 AD in the Sub Tuum Presidium. This prayer invoking the Virgin Mary received no push back expectant of a pagan accretion—none. It appears as a normative aspect of Christian piety. Furthermore, if Matt can appeal to a lack of “clear” evidence to support something “not taught,” I can appeal to actual evidence from the 3^rd century, which received no push back, and infer backwards in time that the Church likely practiced NPPS.

Response to Point 3 (There are Reasons from the Protestant Canon for Thinking that NPPS is not a Legitimate Christian Practice)

Matt relies heavily on the book of Hebrews to support his claim that “NPPS is not a legitimate Christian practice.” He also relies on the work of Dr. Ronald Nash and his book, The Gospel and the Greeks: Did the New Testament Borrow from Pagan Thought? According to Matt, Nash contends that the author of Hebrews wrote against the Philo/Alexandrian Jewish school who posited an extremely remote God who relied on lessor mediators like “Logos, Sophia, the angels, Moses, Melchizedek, and the high priest” to bridge a cosmic gap. Countering this, Hebrew contends that:

…under the new covenant, God saw it fitting to reveal Himself via His Son and NOT by means of these Hellenistic mediators. Christ is the true “effulgence”. He is not just superior to the Alexandrian principles; He is the real deal! Showing the superiority of Christ just IS to refute the need for Alexandrian mediators.

Finally, Matt draws the following conclusion from Hebrews and Nash:

Presenting Christ as the high priest who is sufficient as a mediator in contrast with the need for the variety of mediators of Philo and that school of thought at least sets a frame of mind that rejects unnecessary mediators. The rejection of these mediators is a rejection of the Alexandrian ontology, but it is also a rejection of their soteriological notions, and the practices associated with them.

So, according to Matt, the book of Hebrews, written against the Philo/Alexandrian school of invoking other mediators, condemns the eventual Catholic practice of NPPS. Furthermore, this same Philo/Alexandrian school may also provide a potential source for NPPS, and since Hebrews condemns the Philo/Alexandrian school, it condemns NPPS, as well.

Now, does Nash’s view of Hebrews also make unnecessary all Chrisitan mediators, even we who pray for our fellow Christians? Certainly, not. Matt states that he (and Protestants in general) sees no problem with other mediators. He states:

Protestants don’t have a problem with beings in heaven praying for us (whether saints or angels). That is NOT the issue!

So, in appealing to Nash and Hebrews, Matt does not condemn mediation itself. Again, the main issue Matt has with NPPS concerns invocation, not mediation.

Responding to Matt’s Final Case Against NPPS

My claim is that you don’t see a positive case for praying to saints in our canonical literature. You don’t see it in the first 200 years of the church. So, the natural question should be: Where does it come from?

What I’ve attempted to do in this article is to point out a possible set of conceptual building blocks that could have (along with other conceptual building blocks [i.e. Roman hero worship, queen of heaven cults]) contributed to a doctrine of praying to the saints. The New Testament doesn’t admonish us to pray to saints, but Hellenistic Jews did have a framework for thinking about mediators who were venerated and aided us in our journey of salvation. We see the New Testament condemning these beliefs and practices.

The fact that Matt makes an appeal to a Protestant canon presents its own set of problems. For example, the Protestant claim to possess “a fallible list of infallible books” may put the book of Hebrews itself in question. No apostle wrote Hebrews and Eusebius stated that some, even the Church of Rome at one time, rejected it. Also, why not accept the book of 1 Clement? This book, like the Gospel of Mark, was written by a known associate of the apostle Paul (Philippians 4:3). So, why does Matt accept the book of Hebrews in his canon and not 1 Clement?

Furthermore, while we don’t see NPPS clearly in the first 200 years of Christianity, we do see it as part of Christian piety in the early 3^rd century. The earliest discovered (recently), dating from around 230 AD, invokes St. Titus. Should we believe that this artifact, the Sub Tuum Presidium, plus a great number of grave markers represent the Church falling to the Philo/Alexandrian school, or worse falling to paganism, with ZERO push back?

Final Thoughts…

To conclude, it appears we are homing in on the real issue at hand. Matt and I seem to agree (or Matt allows) on the following:

Christians may venerate the Saints and the Virgin Mary.
Christians may communicate with deceased Saints if God grants them a vision or if one appears to them, unasked for.
Saints and the Virgin Mary in heaven can pray (mediate) for those on earth.

As stated, numerous times above, Matt’s main issue with NPPS seems to concern the act of invoking the Saints and Virgin Mary. That early Christians did this, at least from the 2^nd century onward, reflects for Matt a violation of New Testament Christianity, a violation that went unchallenged and was ultimately enthusiastically endorsed by the universal Church (East and West) until the Protestant Reformation.

Matt’s case offers some interesting food for thought; however, he fails to produce a smoking gun showing when the practice of invoking the Saints and Virgin Mary infiltrated the Church. Moreover, since we see NO evidence condemning it and enthusiastic universal endorsement it from the 3rd century on, we must infer a high likelihood it existed in some form in the 1st and 2nd centuries.