While you wait, this is a great and short primer of the Lutheran approach to scripture! internetmonk.com/archive/thinking-about-the-canon-a-lutheran-view
While you're waiting, here is a very good (and short) article on the Lutheran approach to Scripture and the canon: internetmonk.com/archive/thinking-about-the-canon-a-lutheran-view
The rich man, in the Lazarus/rich man parable, prayed to Abraham. Jesus Himself, at His transfiguration, prayed to Elijah and Moses. Catholics do not worship the saints because Catholics do not recognize the saints as God. That is the crucial difference between latria and dulia. Prayers to the saints work. Prayers to the saints are answered. I know this from personal experience.
"For as she [Church] has received freely from God, freely also does she minister [to others]. Nor does she perform anything by means of angelic invocations, or by incantations, or by any other wicked curious art; but, directing her prayers to the Lord, who made all things, in a pure, sincere, and straightforward spirit, and calling upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ" Iraeneus of Lyon, Adversus Haereses II, 32, 4-5
I'm a Methodist and I love your videos my brethren 🙌🏻💙 God bless you and give you even more wisdom and knowledge to keep teaching in the body of Christ
The fact that St. Paul never mentions Mary in all his writings is not easy to ignore. Where she is referenced in Paul’s writings, she’s only called “a woman” (Gal 4:4) and not named or honored. This is indirect to the topic, and is an argument from silence, but to me, it’s a deafening silence that I couldn’t ignore when I was considering Orthodoxy.
@@Catholic-Perennialist I would expert the mother of God to rank equally alongside me, you, and all the other saints! Nothing wrong with honoring Mary or calling her blessed. She was! What we take issue with is the whole treasury of merit thing. Giving hyperdulia to Mary and viewing her as a mediatrix/co-redemptor is certainly a logical extension of this idea -- but none of it really develops before the High Middle Ages (with the exception of John of Damascus, granted, but one person using a certain term in the 700s is a far cry from representing the church as a whole). So then the only way to really defend these things (and the Immaculate Conception) is by appealing to Newman-style doctrinal development, which is its own can of worms. It’s also worth noting that using “Kecharitomene” to exegese the Immaculate Conception hangs upon the RC view of grace as something infused (as opposed to divine favor only). Which itself goes back to the RC doctrine of man being able to cooperate with said grace. So, really, the entire debate goes back to differing views of Original Sin.
John6forty-eight How do you go from “all generations will call me blessed” to the extreme of creating a habit of praying to her obsessively? It’s not commanded to personally speak to her in heaven. Lutherans do say she is blessed - not in an obsessive compulsive manner, but they do say she is blessed, especially during Christmas.
Zarnofad -one thing to think about is that tradition (and common sense) tells us that Luke's gospel likely largely corresponds to the gospel that Paul preached. And Luke has the most significant Marian passages. Paul's letters already assume the Gospel has been preached. They are "follow ups" to the churches he founded. Same reason Paul doesn't talk about the empty tomb which some make a big deal of. Arguments from silence in his letters about matters in the Gospel(s) are not that compelling or deafening.
Todd Voss But, if the significance of Mary affects your language and expression and religion, you don’t just say, “Well, it was covered in the Bible,” but you actively incorporate the beliefs into your everyday language and communication, especially when you are talking about the Gospel. Paul does spend considerable time on the resurrection in one of his epistles (1Cor. 15) because some were going around saying Christ was not risen. That’s definitely not silence. Never mentioning the name of Mary is silence.
Dr. Cooper: Thank you very much for your work and your presence on sites like TH-cam. Your videos have helped me a lot on my way to the Lutheran church. P.S. Could you enable the option of "automatically generated subtitles"? It is an important resource for me. I am a Spanish speaker. Greetings from Argentina! 🇦🇷 Federico.
I really thought I was going to become Catholic but the only thing standing in my way was their Mary beliefs. The deeper I got into it the worse it got. mediatrix of all grace, advocate, coredemptrix. It’s really getting out of control. I read Louis-Marie de Montfort true devotion to Mary and then Maximilian Kolbe and few people have freaked me out more than them. Largely it seems like they just want to put a bottle neck intermediary between us and Christ.
Rome truly is a white-washed sepulcher. Her apologists will always engage on the most academic, abstract level for every doctrine and practice because the practiced reality is abhorrent. Between prayers to the saints, the idolatry of the mass, indulgences, relics, auricular confession, purgatory, and every other blasphemy, there is nothing but a system to torment the faithful and send them to idols instead of Christ.
Yup... they'll never mention that... or how when one of the popes what shot and he was practically dieing he kept praying to Mary over and over again... at least EO use the Jesus Prayer... There is a gap between practice and "doctrine" they'll say they won't but then they ask Mary to save them... then they do stuff like the St. Andrew's prayer to find stuff... or bury his statue in the yard to sell the house... its superstition if the Mary veneration ended at the Hail Mary and the Hail Holy Queen... i would be willing to side with the RC when they say "we just venerate" but there is so much more crossing the line
What I find is a strong distinction between the basic apologetic arguments regarding the communion of saints (which are generally understandable points), and what one sees in actual practice. The practices themselves are hard to distinguish from worship.
@@DrJordanBCooper I've noticed that Catholics often seem to pray to Mary with the same hope of salvation in their hearts and minds (and in the case of the Salve Regina, the same words) with which they pray to Christ. Differences between hyperdulia and latria are then made afterwards as a defense. And regarding differences between doctrine and practice -- Catholics assure me that my works don't save me, and yet the homilies at masses I've attended are always about obedience and the works I should be doing. As nuanced as Catholic synergism may be, the differences between doctrine and practice are nevertheless striking.
I converted from Roman Catholic Church to Lutheran and one of the major reasons were Mary beliefs and related practices. In fact the tractate by Louis de Montfort reassured me that I made a good decision.
This has been so helpful. The lady im looking to marry is Catholic and this helps immensely, I cant in good conscious put some popes word above the bible and ive struggled to explain this
Where can one get a digital copy of the work of Martin Chemnitz? I ask about digital, because all the paper volumes that I have found are more expensive than is feasible for me. Thank you
Reverend could you in the future bring a more detailed video(just like this one) about the Lutheran view on the use of images and icons? I also would like to see the aplications of Chemnitz works on this if possible.
I am not Lutheran, but I appreciate your videos. I am a Nazarene and have enjoyed your videos. I appreciate this one especially. The concept of prayers to the saints is one major reason I am not Roman Catholic.
Thanks Dr. Cooper for this video, as always! While I don't intend on becoming Catholic or Orthodox, this is definitely one of the biggest issues I have with either branch of Christianity. I'm reading The Christ of the Covenants by O. Palmer Robertson and I find his view on covenant theology quite fascinating and compelling. I was wondering if you could (whenever you would have the time) do a video on the Lutheran view of the biblical metanarrative. Do Lutherans follow covenant theology or do they have a metanarrative quite distinct from covenant theology or dispensationalism?
Part of the issue is that for Lutherans, prayer is worship and made from faith. It falls under the First Commandment and the Chief Article of Justification by grace through faith alone. To pray to any but God is idolatry and contrary to trusting in Christ alone for our salvation. Which is really ONE issue looked at from two different angles - “who’s the god that you trust?” That’s the question
It seems that people miss the ok importance of prayer, it can also be for God to tell you what to do for yourself or another person. This is why it can be important to pray for someone.
Hi Dr Cooper, not sure if you've answered this before but I would like to know why there are so many denominations, I'm non-denominational myself but does it matter which denomination you choose and follow? Thanks for the videos you put out, God bless!
Could you please subtitle the videos of the channel in order to facilitate the translation into other languages? Here in Brazil, we like dr. Copper's videos.
Question: if prayer (a request) is an act of worship, what is it when I request (pray) a friend help me with a task? Knowing that a prayer is a request, it seems difficult to make the unqualified statement that “prayer is worship”. Should we instead say that “prayer to God” is an act of worship? And if so, then a prayer (request) to a saint would not, by definition, be an act of worship.
@@Mygoalwogel What is your point here with the quote of the prayer? I assume you're making the point that this Orthodox prayer to Mary is a form of worship. I don't know that I'd call it worship, but it is an example that contradicts the apostolic faith by replacing Christ our Forerunner and Savior of all mankind with Mary (who was used by the Orthodox / Catholic church as a replacement for Isis). No doubt she is blessed and we should honor her highly, but she is not our savior, and she is no mediatrix.
@@choppy1356 Asking a saint to pray for you may not be the same as worshiping a saint. The example I posted is. Both groups pray to saints the way Christians pray to the Father.
@@choppy1356 But I think you're right. It's not necessarily an act of worship. It just ends up being. And we have no promises that they are even listening to us, though Revelation does say they're praying.
@@Mygoalwogel for clarification, I wasn’t intending to defend prayer to the saints in my original comment, but merely asking about defining prayer as worship. If I saw evidence that the faith of the apostles included prayer *to* the saints, I’d adopt the practice. But instead, I see only a direct and explicit contradiction in such prayers to the apostolic faith. That, in my mind, negates the claim of the Orthodox Church as “the one, true church”. Praying to the saints, and Mary in particular, seems to be clearly a *new* doctrine and practice (as of the 3rd Century), originating from Egypt with its gnostic milieu and cult of Isis.
Thanks for engaging in as fair minded of a way as your theological commitments permit. This was good but did get bogged down and skipped the middle part of the historical development- which I realize you will do in the next segment. I don’t have time to go point by point but this comment still ended up very long. First of all , this is not just a “Roman” issue (I realized you briefly noted that in mid lecture, but the opening and closing was very Rome-centric). Important because you are, in fact, arguing against the universal practice of all the ancient churches well before 1000 A.D.(i.e. Western Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, the various Oriental Orthodox post Chalcedon) . I grant it was a Newman type development. Note it was more a development of devotional /liturgical practice prior to any detailed doctrinal statements. I have no problem with that from my Catholic perspective and I doubt any EO would either. It would appear that development probably accelerated in the decades after the broader Decian/Valerian persecutions circa 250 to 257AD due to the wider spread and enhancement of the cult of martyrs. It is very informative to read the correspondence between the bishops and leading priests of Carthage and Roman Christian communities at that time (Cyprian et al). One already sees the lapsed asking the confessors and martyrs to intervene, pray for them and also write letters to the bishops for re-admission to communion etc. And of course, in such circumstances the immediate “crown of martyrdom” was strongly experienced as the martyr being ushered immediately into eternal life with Christ(and did they cease “hearing”? - it might have felt rather impious to think so after such events) . So one can see how that could develop (whether rightly or wrongly- naturally I think rightly). Whatever the exact time frame, it would appear simply based on lex orandi, lex credendi that the invocation to the Saints in various prayers of the Divine Office and Divine Liturgy that this was a practice of the Universal Church East and West by at least the 7th century and more likely the late 4th century. So whatever was going on in the first and second centuries (silent for some of the reasons you note) or the third, it did develop rather steadily after that. In other words, invoking the Saints to pray for you, and occasionally using “extravagant language” to do so, was in place well before the period you find especially abusive as it developed even further in the West (e.g. high middle ages to 19th Century with more extravagant language and other developments such as the fully blown treasury of merits etc). However, you seem to be arguing that even such earlier universal practices were just as heretical as the gnostic type practices you noted earlier in the lecture - since you think “prayer is worship” (i.e. they weren’t just adiaphora that was best avoided but actually heretical). In other words, I take it that you are accusing the _universal_ church in, say the 5th century until the Reformation, to be _universally_ practicing heresy. Of course, the universal Church did not view these practices as worship of the Saints but a lesser form of veneration (just to give one evidence - in a letter of St. Augustine he notes that the greeks have terms to “explain the difference” - apparently the Greek terms for latria and dulia. Interesting because eventually Latin terms were created to express the same - i.e latria and dulia). I say this because you will have to defend the Lutherans for eliminating from their masses /divine liturgy even the barest and most general invocation of the Saints -i.e. even a simple request that they pray for the Church. And, of course, to this day, that is the case in Lutheran Divine Service . In other words, even if I were to grant that reformation era (and beyond ) practices were abusive (in fact, I don’t but with some qualification), I would still assert that the Lutherans threw out the baby with the bath water by rejecting the universal invocation of the Saints that existed in say the 4th - 7th centuries. If you did view them as mere adiaphora, then it still isn’t clear why there would be absolute prohibition and elimination from the Liturgy. Of course, from my perspective it was also an unacceptable break with a universal Sacred Tradition. Sorry for the long comment and I realize you will be addressing some of these points in your next segment.
Did you watch the first video in this series? I know it was quite a few months ago, but I addressed the latria/dulia distinction there. My claim is not that the early medieval prayers to saints are identical with the explicit angel-worshipping gnostic sects. I certainly recognize that it was not the intention of Christians to engage in worship of the departed, and that a clear distinction is made between the invocation of saints, and prayer which is offered to God alone. My argument is that, Scripturally, there is no place for prayer which is distinct from worship. This doesn't mean that every Christian who engages in the practice is a blatant idolater in the sense that a pagan would be, or a heretical gnostic.
@@DrJordanBCooper I did watch it but I thought after you did further research your view had narrowed. Pleased to hear it didn't. If I am understanding you , you are saying you accept that there is a distinction between latria and dulia and prayer to God and "prayer" to Saints, but nothing in scripture warrants actually engaging in prayer outside of "worship"(latria) of God. Which I think could also be stated as nothing in scripture warrants engaging in prayer as part of dulia. That feels like an argument from silence to me. But if that is your point, I get it. There are a few scriptural points that can be made but I don't think they would be persuasive to you. Thanks for taking the time to reply.
The 3rd and 4th century is not "very early". The USA was founded 2 1/2 centuries ago, and look how completely different it is today than it was from what the founding fathers envisioned. Scripture tells us that whilst the Apostles yet lived, they were already battling schisms and heresies, pointing to something that some church did 200 years after the Apostles as if that should have any weight at all, is absurd.
"Very early" is a relative phrase, denoting that the practice was not developed in the late medieval period as were some of the other ideas at the brunt of the Reformation's critique. You are right though. We do tend to forget just how much time really separates a large portion of the Patristic era from the New Testament itself.
I think you are failing to account for just how much the world has exponentially changed from especially the 20th century onwards. There are certainly differences between 90 AD and 200 AD but these differences are mostly negligible when looking at the difference between say 1920 and 2020. So it's not fair to compare the America from 1776 and the America of 2020 as analogous to the potential difference between the First and Third Century Christianity - apples and oranges in my opinion
@@SuperSaiyanKrillin The amount of tumult in those centuries means Rome under Tiberius was markedly different from under Constantine even if there wasn't a gigantic technological boom there. Moreoever, the very fact that Christianity rapidly rose from a persecuted underground sect to the state religion of an empire makes for a serious disruption that explains why so many false doctrines can be traced back to a rotten seed planted in the 4th century or so before disappearing into the mists, to be taken on faith by Rome or Constantinople that the apostles and everyone following them just forgot to write it down for a few centuries.
@@SuperSaiyanKrillin It is if we are simply talking about culture and ideas, not technological innovations. Think of how much America changed from 1776 to 1876. History is not static. That is one of the great fallacies of modern thinking. From the end of the 1st century, with the completion of the New Testament Scriptures and the passing of the Apostles, to the end of the 3rd Century is 200 years. That's 8 generations. By 306 AD Constantine is the Emperor, and Christianity is no longer illegal, 74 years later and it is declared the sole religion of the Empire. If you can't see how HUGE of a change that is, imagine the US in 1900 where virtually everyone identifies as Christian, then a Muslim leader is elected as President, and by 1975 Islam is the sole religion of the US. That is a massive cultural, political, and religious change ... although arguably, going from Polytheism to Monotheistic Christianity would be an even bigger change.
Did you guys know there is a prayer to St. Joseph that dates back to 50 a.d.? I think we could call that very early. 50 a.d. was before any of the New Testament books were even written, except Matthew, Mark, and possibly 1 and 2 Thessalonians.
In the Middle Ages, people were taught that the Holy Trinity was unapproachable because of Their holiness, and man's sinfulness, so there were needed intermediaries to take the people's prayers before the Throne of God.
As someone who has returned to Lutheranism as an adult and never been Roman Catholic... but is considering EO and RC... I just want to state some things: 1. I feel like the Lutheran Church could do a better job of venerating the saints... In most devotionals and books the saints are hardly mentioned where as catholic and EO have each day of the year to commemorate saints and its put out in the front for everyone to learn and remember their sacrifices; i enjoy reading the writings and learning about saints cause as you said it is important to almost have role models in a sense that you can relate to as human-human to seek inspiration for growing your faith 2. I do say the Hail Mary but only in the sense that I am asking her to pray... I read some of the other prayers to saints from RC and EO traditions and i'm just like bro... isn't this crossing the line just a bit? 3. The Saint Michael Prayer is pretty cool and its sad that we don't get to say it as lutherans
It’s OK. EO don’t get the amazing hymns (Amazing Grace, etc.) and Christmas carols (O Holy Night). If it’s a matter of taste, I’d go with Lutheran and just light your candles and keep your icons. No problem with that, right?
@That Lutheran Guy thats true... my problem may not be with Lutheranism but just the watered down state of christianity in America in general except for scattered enclaves of tradition
@@zarnoffa basically.... i like lutheranism for the theology ( and its my heritage)... RC for the practices and devotions( latin mass, rosary, etc)... and EO for the mysticism.... and currently torn between those three
I'm also in the same boat. To be honest, I don't mind asking the saints to pray for me. However something that I do not like with the RCC is role as mary as mediatrix and coredemptrix. Or the belief that nobody can get to heaven except through mary. These teachings are heretical and unbiblical and bother me so much because I like everything else about rome. Also I can't help but see placing flowers at the feet of statues of the Virgin etc; as an act of pure idolatry.
Do we have direct scriptural evidence that the saints know what’s going on here? Ecclesiastes 9:5 says that the dead know nothing. Roman Catholics, say that they are not dead, but have their souls not separated from their bodies which is the definition of death. We can honor their memories…..
And yet the glorified saints do perform marvellous miracles upon request, and, no doubt, with the blessing of our Lord. and by his grace given to them. Read the history of Saints Raphael, Nicholas and Irene from the Island of Mytilene, for example.
Also, given your comments in the last couple minutes of the video, I feel compelled to also give a more personal perspective of my practice and “state of mind”. I don’t know what “studies of Italians of [even] more recent eras” show, but when I (and the Catholics that I personally know well) invoke the Saints, I do go before the throne of God in prayer and am asking them to do the same with me (the Saints just do it “better”) just as you acknowledge is licit do with living fellow Christians. Of course, I first honor their heroic sanctity when addressing them before asking them to join my prayers and yes that is a difference but one that is quite justified. I do not think they are “nicer” than God and do not invoke them out of some sort of fear of praying directly to Jesus or the Father or the Holy Spirit.
@@anna_kendrick_lamar7020 They do it better if only because they are more intimately participating in the divine life - the beatific vision. Before any consideration of merit . They are in heaven with the Lord and I am not.
@@anna_kendrick_lamar7020 I will answer you one more time but won't keep going back and forth. There was no dodging. You just weren't reading carefully. I believe that their prayers are more efficacious whether they can offer their merits or not and whether merits effect the level of their beatific vision. Because I have ZERO beatific vision and they all have the beatific vision. So even before considering merits( as I said in my first reply), their prayers are more efficacious. Yes, I believe what the Church teaches about merits, but I was trying to help you see that such teachings are not necessary to believe in the benefits of invoking the Saints. And I am arguing more broadly for the position of the universal Church of East and West so I am not arguing for the maximum Roman Catholic position. I am showing I only need to argue for what is common to the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox position to show this practice was universal from approx late 4th through the reformation. And thus to challenge the Lutheran(and protestant) departure from this practice and belief. And that the reformation rejection of it can only be justified by Sola Scriptura. And a specifically a Sola Scriptura that prohibits practices and beliefs if they are not positively and expressly affirmed in a clear way in Scripture. I.e. a Sola Scriptura that is narrow as to what is Adiaphora. And which breaks (unacceptably in my view) with Sacred Tradition. I am suggesting that Lutherans consider and explain to themselves how such an unacceptable, unbiblical, heterodox practice (and unlike Dr. Cooper many would view as heretical) could have been practiced by the _universal_ christian Church for almost 800-1000 years. And when I say practice, a part of the Mass/Divine Liturgy/Divine Service every Sunday. As part of the official liturgy of the entire praying Church. We aren't talking about private prayers.
@@toddvoss52 from the Eastern perspective, Rome has been in error for 1000 years over the issue of the Roman pope. And vice-versa from the Roman perspective. Either way, we’re forced to admit the Church can be in serious error for a very long time.
Prayer is not worship. Worship is, essentially, sacrifice and eating with your god. That's it. Worship is not singing. It's not prayer. It's not singing or praying really hard. It's Communion with God, which involves the Trinity.
Yeah, that's the problem I see when protestants and catholics talk about it, they don't use the term with the same sense. Also, worshipping is slightly different depending if it's catholic or protestant, right? Catholic worship more through the sacraments, I'd say, since they're channels of grace and things like that. I could be wrong though.
I'd like to know the protestant view of worshipping. What makes a protestant, de facto, a christian? Actions? Just the mere fact of saying "I accept Jesus", wha't's next?
Would you say then that a Hindu who never lays down food offerings to their idols doesn't worship them? Or that atheists cannot worship reason, for they don't eat with her?
@@j.g.4942 From the ancient near east/biblical understanding of the term "worship" no, they would not be worshipping. They are also **not** worshipping the One True God either, which is an entirely different problem.
Necromancy! The state of the dead, according to the word of God. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof *thou shalt surely die* {Genesis 2:17} Man dieth, and wasteth away: yea, man giveth up the ghost, and where is he? ... So man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their *sleep* O that thou wouldest hide me in the grave, that thou wouldest keep me secret, *until thy wrath be past* that thou wouldest appoint me a set time, and remember me! If a man die, shall he live again? all the days of my appointed time will I wait, 👉till my change come. ... His sons come to honour, and he knoweth it not; and they are brought low, but he perceiveth it not of them. {Job 14:10, 12-14 & 21} And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my *flesh* shall I see God. {Job 19:26} Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest. {The Preacher 9:10} Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish. {Psalm 146:3-4} Then said his disciples, Lord, if he *sleep* he shall do well. Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep. Then said Jesus unto them plainly, "Lazarus is dead." {John 11:12-14} ... Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection 👉at the last day. Jesus said unto her, "I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet *shall* he live:" {John 11:24-25} But go thou thy way till the end be: for *thou shalt rest* and stand in thy lot *at the end of the days* {Daniel 12:13} For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him *should not perish* but have everlasting life. {John 3:16} And *the serpent said* unto the woman, *Ye shall not surely die* {Genesis 3:4} Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down *in the midst of the stones of fire* {Ezekiel 28:14} ^ (satan always turns the tables on God, for he is the father of lies.) The sinners in Zion are afraid; fearfulness hath surprised the hypocrites. Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings? He that walketh righteously, and speaketh uprightly; he that despiseth the gain of oppressions, that shaketh his hands from holding of bribes, that stoppeth his ears from hearing of blood, and shutteth his eyes from seeing evil; {Isaiah 33:14-15} If anyone errors in their understanding of this doctrine of the dead, then they will in no way be led to the understanding of the truth, for it will be a stumblingblock unto the decernment of spiritual things, including soilterology and eschatology.
All those verses are great. One problem. Something very very very very important happened that changed our relationship to death. One might even say someone conquered death itself. I’m not even Catholic and I have concerns about praying to the saints and Mary but talk about missing one of the most important things Jesus did.
@@thanevakarian9762 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
It has ALWAYS annoyed me, even when I wasn’t Lutheran and more non-denominational, when I’d hear John described as a “Baptist,” like it’s supposed to prove the Baptist Church is the true church because the name is actually in the Bible (MORMONISM??? 🙃). It also annoys me today because it sets up a wrong impression about baptism in general. It can be argued that many people have a view of baptism that really aligns more with John’s view as a symbol of repentance, rather than Jesus and, quite frankly, Paul’s view as an act of spiritual circumcision which sets people apart FOR the forgiveness of sins.
Hopefully there can be at least some interaction with RC scholars if you're going to address these topics on occasion. The reformed have been addressed and debunked.
@@DrJordanBCooper scholars for sure. Michael Lofton at Reason and Theology and Trent Horn have both offered replies. And Trent I believe has even offered to debate.
@@StayFaithful13 To avoid a more or less complete waste of time, I would suggest a Catholic Scholar from the Thomistic Institute such as Fr. Thomas Joseph White or Fr. Legge. thomisticinstitute.org/#home-section Fr. White is renowned and would be hard to book and is not exactly inclined to do TH-cam debates - so another and perhaps better fit is an even younger scholar - Fr. Peter Totleben at the Pontifical College Josephinum in Ohio. Who is very polite guy but will engage with all points. He at least did appear on Reason and Theology TH-cam discussion although that was a very friendly environment. So maybe he would do it. pcj.academia.edu/PeterTotleben
@@StayFaithful13 Although if it is going to be a non-scholar, then Michael Lofton or Eric Ybarra would be good choices. And I suppose Trent Horn although I have not watched or read his stuff.
Quelle question! A quoi sert-il de prier les saints ? Si tu poses cette question, c’est que tu ne pries jamais , en vérité. Les saints nous accompagnent , je le certifie : pour moi c’est St Victor, le martyr thébain , Il ne m’a jamais fait faux bond . Ah! Ces mal formés de réformés !
Your argument boils down to "it's not in the Bible". But the Bible doesn't say that it is wrong either. So I don't see why your argument is pertinent, because if the absence of something in the Bible means it's wrong, then we shouldn't even drive cars or use vaccines. It doesn't really make sense. Perhaps all the prayers in the Bible are prayers of worship and not of veneration, but it is also true that all the boats in the Bible are made of wood and not of metal. Does it mean that boats made of metal are not possible? Finally, there is an infinite distance between knowing absolutely everything like God, and knowing just the prayers people make to you. And this knowledge is given to the saints by the power of God, not by their own power. Lastly, the Hail Mary is in the Bible. Why would it be right to say the Hail Mary when the Virgin Mary is alive, but then just because she's dead then it becomes worship?
Lutherans are fine with traditions not in scripture as long as they don't contradict scripture! We're not Bible-onlyists. :) That being said I'd certainly challenge you to find the final "pray for us sinners" line of the Hail Mary line in scripture. Last time I checked, it was added in the mid-16th century. ;)
@@anna_kendrick_lamar7020 But his argument wasn't that scripture contradicts prayer to the saints. He's argument was simply that prayer to the saints doesn't appear in scripture at all. That's why I say his argument is not good. As you say, things that don't apear in scripture aren't necessarily wrong. Scriptures forbids worshiping angels and anything that isn't God. But praying is not necessarily worshiping. His argument for saying that praying is worshiping is that all instances of prayer in scripture are instances of worship. I'm not convinced it's true, but even if it is, this isn't a good argument, since as I said, just because prayer that aren't worship don't appear in scripture, it doesn't mean that prayer that aren't worship are not possible or good (since again, absence is scripture doesn't mean contradiction with scripture).
@@meditatio7128 Prayer and worship are two distinct things. Praying to God is often done as worshiping, but not necessarily. Worshiping God implies loving him above all things. Someone can pray to God, not because he loves God, but simply in the hope of using God's favor to obtain what he wants. Surely it would be stupid, and God would not respond to such a prayer, but sadly some people pray like that, and it's not worshiping. In fact, you can even pray to God without believing in him. For example, some atheists sometimes pray by saying something like: "God, if you exist and you hear me, please respond". Such a prayer is directed to God, and is done without worshiping and without actually believing in God, but simply with the hope that God may exist. Praying simply means talking to some spiritual entity. What makes a prayer into a worshiping prayer is the intention. If you pray to someone because you love him above all things, then you are worshiping him. If you pray to someone but you don't love him above all things, then you are not worshiping him.
It's interesting that Lutheran liturgical calendars are loaded with Roman and Orthodox Saints that asked the Saints in heaven to pray for them during their earthly life. 99 percent of them. Also the souls in Christ heavenly have the fullness of the Holy Ghost and the Mind of Christ. The Lutheran tradition needs to get over the middle age scenario.
Lutherans only call biblical figures "Saint X", though they agree with the usage that all Christians are actually saints. They commemorate many Christians outside of the Bible, including people important only to the Lutheran tradition, as well, but they don't officially use the title of Saint for any of them.
Also, the souls in Heaven still aren't God, and it is no more appropriate to venerate angels (which Paul EXPLICITLY CONDEMNS) as it is to address prayers to humans. The RCC's doctrine of the treasury of the saints is one that imperils souls by teaching another Jesus and another salvation.
Could you do a program about the Lutheran approach to the apocryphal books compared to the Roman and Reformed view?
Yes.
While you wait, this is a great and short primer of the Lutheran approach to scripture! internetmonk.com/archive/thinking-about-the-canon-a-lutheran-view
While you're waiting, here is a very good (and short) article on the Lutheran approach to Scripture and the canon: internetmonk.com/archive/thinking-about-the-canon-a-lutheran-view
The rich man, in the Lazarus/rich man parable, prayed to Abraham. Jesus Himself, at His transfiguration, prayed to Elijah and Moses.
Catholics do not worship the saints because Catholics do not recognize the saints as God. That is the crucial difference between latria and dulia.
Prayers to the saints work. Prayers to the saints are answered. I know this from personal experience.
@@GeorgePenton-np9rhanecdotal evidence is not sufficient to refute all the points Dr. Cooper addressed in this video
"For as she [Church] has received freely from God, freely also does she minister [to others]. Nor does she perform anything by means of angelic invocations, or by incantations, or by any other wicked curious art; but, directing her prayers to the Lord, who made all things, in a pure, sincere, and straightforward spirit, and calling upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ"
Iraeneus of Lyon, Adversus Haereses II, 32, 4-5
amen
I'm a Methodist and I love your videos my brethren 🙌🏻💙 God bless you and give you even more wisdom and knowledge to keep teaching in the body of Christ
The fact that St. Paul never mentions Mary in all his writings is not easy to ignore. Where she is referenced in Paul’s writings, she’s only called “a woman” (Gal 4:4) and not named or honored.
This is indirect to the topic, and is an argument from silence, but to me, it’s a deafening silence that I couldn’t ignore when I was considering Orthodoxy.
Omnia Vanitas
Mary wasn’t mentioned even once by Paul. Saying the word “woman” was not an honor. It was just a general fact.
@@Catholic-Perennialist I would expert the mother of God to rank equally alongside me, you, and all the other saints! Nothing wrong with honoring Mary or calling her blessed. She was!
What we take issue with is the whole treasury of merit thing. Giving hyperdulia to Mary and viewing her as a mediatrix/co-redemptor is certainly a logical extension of this idea -- but none of it really develops before the High Middle Ages (with the exception of John of Damascus, granted, but one person using a certain term in the 700s is a far cry from representing the church as a whole). So then the only way to really defend these things (and the Immaculate Conception) is by appealing to Newman-style doctrinal development, which is its own can of worms.
It’s also worth noting that using “Kecharitomene” to exegese the Immaculate Conception hangs upon the RC view of grace as something infused (as opposed to divine favor only). Which itself goes back to the RC doctrine of man being able to cooperate with said grace. So, really, the entire debate goes back to differing views of Original Sin.
John6forty-eight
How do you go from “all generations will call me blessed” to the extreme of creating a habit of praying to her obsessively? It’s not commanded to personally speak to her in heaven. Lutherans do say she is blessed - not in an obsessive compulsive manner, but they do say she is blessed, especially during Christmas.
Zarnofad -one thing to think about is that tradition (and common sense) tells us that Luke's gospel likely largely corresponds to the gospel that Paul preached. And Luke has the most significant Marian passages. Paul's letters already assume the Gospel has been preached. They are "follow ups" to the churches he founded. Same reason Paul doesn't talk about the empty tomb which some make a big deal of. Arguments from silence in his letters about matters in the Gospel(s) are not that compelling or deafening.
Todd Voss
But, if the significance of Mary affects your language and expression and religion, you don’t just say, “Well, it was covered in the Bible,” but you actively incorporate the beliefs into your everyday language and communication, especially when you are talking about the Gospel.
Paul does spend considerable time on the resurrection in one of his epistles (1Cor. 15) because some were going around saying Christ was not risen. That’s definitely not silence. Never mentioning the name of Mary is silence.
Dr. Cooper: Thank you very much for your work and your presence on sites like TH-cam. Your videos have helped me a lot on my way to the Lutheran church.
P.S. Could you enable the option of "automatically generated subtitles"? It is an important resource for me. I am a Spanish speaker.
Greetings from Argentina! 🇦🇷
Federico.
I really thought I was going to become Catholic but the only thing standing in my way was their Mary beliefs. The deeper I got into it the worse it got. mediatrix of all grace, advocate, coredemptrix. It’s really getting out of control. I read Louis-Marie de Montfort true devotion to Mary and then Maximilian Kolbe and few people have freaked me out more than them. Largely it seems like they just want to put a bottle neck intermediary between us and Christ.
Rome truly is a white-washed sepulcher. Her apologists will always engage on the most academic, abstract level for every doctrine and practice because the practiced reality is abhorrent. Between prayers to the saints, the idolatry of the mass, indulgences, relics, auricular confession, purgatory, and every other blasphemy, there is nothing but a system to torment the faithful and send them to idols instead of Christ.
Yup... they'll never mention that... or how when one of the popes what shot and he was practically dieing he kept praying to Mary over and over again... at least EO use the Jesus Prayer...
There is a gap between practice and "doctrine" they'll say they won't but then they ask Mary to save them... then they do stuff like the St. Andrew's prayer to find stuff... or bury his statue in the yard to sell the house... its superstition
if the Mary veneration ended at the Hail Mary and the Hail Holy Queen... i would be willing to side with the RC when they say "we just venerate" but there is so much more crossing the line
What I find is a strong distinction between the basic apologetic arguments regarding the communion of saints (which are generally understandable points), and what one sees in actual practice. The practices themselves are hard to distinguish from worship.
@@DrJordanBCooper I've noticed that Catholics often seem to pray to Mary with the same hope of salvation in their hearts and minds (and in the case of the Salve Regina, the same words) with which they pray to Christ. Differences between hyperdulia and latria are then made afterwards as a defense.
And regarding differences between doctrine and practice -- Catholics assure me that my works don't save me, and yet the homilies at masses I've attended are always about obedience and the works I should be doing. As nuanced as Catholic synergism may be, the differences between doctrine and practice are nevertheless striking.
I converted from Roman Catholic Church to Lutheran and one of the major reasons were Mary beliefs and related practices. In fact the tractate by Louis de Montfort reassured me that I made a good decision.
This has been so helpful. The lady im looking to marry is Catholic and this helps immensely, I cant in good conscious put some popes word above the bible and ive struggled to explain this
Where can one get a digital copy of the work of Martin Chemnitz? I ask about digital, because all the paper volumes that I have found are more expensive than is feasible for me. Thank you
I look forward to the next video covering the history!
These are excellent arguments
Reverend could you in the future bring a more detailed video(just like this one) about the Lutheran view on the use of images and icons? I also would like to see the aplications of Chemnitz works on this if possible.
I second this please. Help the Reformed folk further understand the distinctions between Icons in Lutheranism and RCC/Orthodox
This was good! Very thought provoking. Thanks Jordan!
I am not Lutheran, but I appreciate your videos. I am a Nazarene and have enjoyed your videos. I appreciate this one especially. The concept of prayers to the saints is one major reason I am not Roman Catholic.
Got an ad for a statue of the blessed Virgin Mary on this video... a touch ironic
Thanks Dr. Cooper for this video, as always! While I don't intend on becoming Catholic or Orthodox, this is definitely one of the biggest issues I have with either branch of Christianity. I'm reading The Christ of the Covenants by O. Palmer Robertson and I find his view on covenant theology quite fascinating and compelling. I was wondering if you could (whenever you would have the time) do a video on the Lutheran view of the biblical metanarrative. Do Lutherans follow covenant theology or do they have a metanarrative quite distinct from covenant theology or dispensationalism?
Part of the issue is that for Lutherans, prayer is worship and made from faith. It falls under the First Commandment and the Chief Article of Justification by grace through faith alone.
To pray to any but God is idolatry and contrary to trusting in Christ alone for our salvation. Which is really ONE issue looked at from two different angles - “who’s the god that you trust?” That’s the question
It seems that people miss the ok importance of prayer, it can also be for God to tell you what to do for yourself or another person. This is why it can be important to pray for someone.
Hi Dr Cooper, not sure if you've answered this before but I would like to know why there are so many denominations, I'm non-denominational myself but does it matter which denomination you choose and follow? Thanks for the videos you put out, God bless!
Could you please subtitle the videos of the channel in order to facilitate the translation into other languages?
Here in Brazil, we like dr. Copper's videos.
19:20
john the "baptizer" is more common then you might think. I'm from the Church of Christ, and some of us call him john the Immerser
Question: if prayer (a request) is an act of worship, what is it when I request (pray) a friend help me with a task? Knowing that a prayer is a request, it seems difficult to make the unqualified statement that “prayer is worship”. Should we instead say that “prayer to God” is an act of worship? And if so, then a prayer (request) to a saint would not, by definition, be an act of worship.
*Orthodox Compline prayer to Mary:*
_On the terrible day of judgment, deliver me from eternal punishment and make me an heir of your Son's glory_
@@Mygoalwogel What is your point here with the quote of the prayer? I assume you're making the point that this Orthodox prayer to Mary is a form of worship. I don't know that I'd call it worship, but it is an example that contradicts the apostolic faith by replacing Christ our Forerunner and Savior of all mankind with Mary (who was used by the Orthodox / Catholic church as a replacement for Isis). No doubt she is blessed and we should honor her highly, but she is not our savior, and she is no mediatrix.
@@choppy1356 Asking a saint to pray for you may not be the same as worshiping a saint. The example I posted is. Both groups pray to saints the way Christians pray to the Father.
@@choppy1356 But I think you're right. It's not necessarily an act of worship. It just ends up being. And we have no promises that they are even listening to us, though Revelation does say they're praying.
@@Mygoalwogel for clarification, I wasn’t intending to defend prayer to the saints in my original comment, but merely asking about defining prayer as worship. If I saw evidence that the faith of the apostles included prayer *to* the saints, I’d adopt the practice. But instead, I see only a direct and explicit contradiction in such prayers to the apostolic faith. That, in my mind, negates the claim of the Orthodox Church as “the one, true church”. Praying to the saints, and Mary in particular, seems to be clearly a *new* doctrine and practice (as of the 3rd Century), originating from Egypt with its gnostic milieu and cult of Isis.
I get our tradition as Lutherans, and I understand our criticism BUT sometimes I get this impulse to ask for the saints to pray for me…idk why…
Would you do a video on inspiration and inconsistencies in the Bible, specifically in the Gospels for example.
Thanks for engaging in as fair minded of a way as your theological commitments permit. This was good but did get bogged down and skipped the middle part of the historical development- which I realize you will do in the next segment. I don’t have time to go point by point but this comment still ended up very long. First of all , this is not just a “Roman” issue (I realized you briefly noted that in mid lecture, but the opening and closing was very Rome-centric). Important because you are, in fact, arguing against the universal practice of all the ancient churches well before 1000 A.D.(i.e. Western Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, the various Oriental Orthodox post Chalcedon)
.
I grant it was a Newman type development. Note it was more a development of devotional /liturgical practice prior to any detailed doctrinal statements. I have no problem with that from my Catholic perspective and I doubt any EO would either.
It would appear that development probably accelerated in the decades after the broader Decian/Valerian persecutions circa 250 to 257AD due to the wider spread and enhancement of the cult of martyrs. It is very informative to read the correspondence between the bishops and leading priests of Carthage and Roman Christian communities at that time (Cyprian et al). One already sees the lapsed asking the confessors and martyrs to intervene, pray for them and also write letters to the bishops for re-admission to communion etc. And of course, in such circumstances the immediate “crown of martyrdom” was strongly experienced as the martyr being ushered immediately into eternal life with Christ(and did they cease “hearing”? - it might have felt rather impious to think so after such events) . So one can see how that could develop (whether rightly or wrongly- naturally I think rightly).
Whatever the exact time frame, it would appear simply based on lex orandi, lex credendi that the invocation to the Saints in various prayers of the Divine Office and Divine Liturgy that this was a practice of the Universal Church East and West by at least the 7th century and more likely the late 4th century. So whatever was going on in the first and second centuries (silent for some of the reasons you note) or the third, it did develop rather steadily after that. In other words, invoking the Saints to pray for you, and occasionally using “extravagant language” to do so, was in place well before the period you find especially abusive as it developed even further in the West (e.g. high middle ages to 19th Century with more extravagant language and other developments such as the fully blown treasury of merits etc).
However, you seem to be arguing that even such earlier universal practices were just as heretical as the gnostic type practices you noted earlier in the lecture - since you think “prayer is worship” (i.e. they weren’t just adiaphora that was best avoided but actually heretical). In other words, I take it that you are accusing the _universal_ church in, say the 5th century until the Reformation, to be _universally_ practicing heresy. Of course, the universal Church did not view these practices as worship of the Saints but a lesser form of veneration (just to give one evidence - in a letter of St. Augustine he notes that the greeks have terms to “explain the difference” - apparently the Greek terms for latria and dulia. Interesting because eventually Latin terms were created to express the same - i.e latria and dulia). I say this because you will have to defend the Lutherans for eliminating from their masses /divine liturgy even the barest and most general invocation of the Saints -i.e. even a simple request that they pray for the Church. And, of course, to this day, that is the case in Lutheran Divine Service . In other words, even if I were to grant that reformation era (and beyond ) practices were abusive (in fact, I don’t but with some qualification), I would still assert that the Lutherans threw out the baby with the bath water by rejecting the universal invocation of the Saints that existed in say the 4th - 7th centuries. If you did view them as mere adiaphora, then it still isn’t clear why there would be absolute prohibition and elimination from the Liturgy. Of course, from my perspective it was also an unacceptable break with a universal Sacred Tradition.
Sorry for the long comment and I realize you will be addressing some of these points in your next segment.
Did you watch the first video in this series? I know it was quite a few months ago, but I addressed the latria/dulia distinction there. My claim is not that the early medieval prayers to saints are identical with the explicit angel-worshipping gnostic sects. I certainly recognize that it was not the intention of Christians to engage in worship of the departed, and that a clear distinction is made between the invocation of saints, and prayer which is offered to God alone. My argument is that, Scripturally, there is no place for prayer which is distinct from worship. This doesn't mean that every Christian who engages in the practice is a blatant idolater in the sense that a pagan would be, or a heretical gnostic.
@@DrJordanBCooper I did watch it but I thought after you did further research your view had narrowed. Pleased to hear it didn't. If I am understanding you , you are saying you accept that there is a distinction between latria and dulia and prayer to God and "prayer" to Saints, but nothing in scripture warrants actually engaging in prayer outside of "worship"(latria) of God. Which I think could also be stated as nothing in scripture warrants engaging in prayer as part of dulia. That feels like an argument from silence to me. But if that is your point, I get it. There are a few scriptural points that can be made but I don't think they would be persuasive to you.
Thanks for taking the time to reply.
The 3rd and 4th century is not "very early". The USA was founded 2 1/2 centuries ago, and look how completely different it is today than it was from what the founding fathers envisioned.
Scripture tells us that whilst the Apostles yet lived, they were already battling schisms and heresies, pointing to something that some church did 200 years after the Apostles as if that should have any weight at all, is absurd.
"Very early" is a relative phrase, denoting that the practice was not developed in the late medieval period as were some of the other ideas at the brunt of the Reformation's critique. You are right though. We do tend to forget just how much time really separates a large portion of the Patristic era from the New Testament itself.
I think you are failing to account for just how much the world has exponentially changed from especially the 20th century onwards.
There are certainly differences between 90 AD and 200 AD but these differences are mostly negligible when looking at the difference between say 1920 and 2020.
So it's not fair to compare the America from 1776 and the America of 2020 as analogous to the potential difference between the First and Third Century Christianity - apples and oranges in my opinion
@@SuperSaiyanKrillin The amount of tumult in those centuries means Rome under Tiberius was markedly different from under Constantine even if there wasn't a gigantic technological boom there. Moreoever, the very fact that Christianity rapidly rose from a persecuted underground sect to the state religion of an empire makes for a serious disruption that explains why so many false doctrines can be traced back to a rotten seed planted in the 4th century or so before disappearing into the mists, to be taken on faith by Rome or Constantinople that the apostles and everyone following them just forgot to write it down for a few centuries.
@@SuperSaiyanKrillin It is if we are simply talking about culture and ideas, not technological innovations. Think of how much America changed from 1776 to 1876.
History is not static. That is one of the great fallacies of modern thinking.
From the end of the 1st century, with the completion of the New Testament Scriptures and the passing of the Apostles, to the end of the 3rd Century is 200 years. That's 8 generations.
By 306 AD Constantine is the Emperor, and Christianity is no longer illegal, 74 years later and it is declared the sole religion of the Empire. If you can't see how HUGE of a change that is, imagine the US in 1900 where virtually everyone identifies as Christian, then a Muslim leader is elected as President, and by 1975 Islam is the sole religion of the US. That is a massive cultural, political, and religious change ... although arguably, going from Polytheism to Monotheistic Christianity would be an even bigger change.
Did you guys know there is a prayer to St. Joseph that dates back to 50 a.d.? I think we could call that very early. 50 a.d. was before any of the New Testament books were even written, except Matthew, Mark, and possibly 1 and 2 Thessalonians.
Very clear!
How do they know all of these saints are in heaven? Is that presumption?
In the Middle Ages, people were taught that the Holy Trinity was unapproachable because of Their holiness, and man's sinfulness, so there were needed intermediaries to take the people's prayers before the Throne of God.
Good job bro
I have to run your videos at .75 speed to understand you
As someone who has returned to Lutheranism as an adult and never been Roman Catholic... but is considering EO and RC... I just want to state some things:
1. I feel like the Lutheran Church could do a better job of venerating the saints... In most devotionals and books the saints are hardly mentioned where as catholic and EO have each day of the year to commemorate saints and its put out in the front for everyone to learn and remember their sacrifices; i enjoy reading the writings and learning about saints cause as you said it is important to almost have role models in a sense that you can relate to as human-human to seek inspiration for growing your faith
2. I do say the Hail Mary but only in the sense that I am asking her to pray... I read some of the other prayers to saints from RC and EO traditions and i'm just like bro... isn't this crossing the line just a bit?
3. The Saint Michael Prayer is pretty cool and its sad that we don't get to say it as lutherans
It’s OK. EO don’t get the amazing hymns (Amazing Grace, etc.) and Christmas carols (O Holy Night). If it’s a matter of taste, I’d go with Lutheran and just light your candles and keep your icons. No problem with that, right?
I recommend "Celebrating the Saints" by William Weedon. Pastor Weedon is the former Director of Worship for the LCMS.
@That Lutheran Guy thats true... my problem may not be with Lutheranism but just the watered down state of christianity in America in general except for scattered enclaves of tradition
@@zarnoffa basically.... i like lutheranism for the theology ( and its my heritage)... RC for the practices and devotions( latin mass, rosary, etc)... and EO for the mysticism.... and currently torn between those three
I'm also in the same boat. To be honest, I don't mind asking the saints to pray for me.
However something that I do not like with the RCC is role as mary as mediatrix and coredemptrix. Or the belief that nobody can get to heaven except through mary. These teachings are heretical and unbiblical and bother me so much because I like everything else about rome.
Also I can't help but see placing flowers at the feet of statues of the Virgin etc; as an act of pure idolatry.
Do we have direct scriptural evidence that the saints know what’s going on here? Ecclesiastes 9:5 says that the dead know nothing. Roman Catholics, say that they are not dead, but have their souls not separated from their bodies which is the definition of death. We can honor their memories…..
And yet the glorified saints do perform marvellous miracles upon request, and, no doubt, with the blessing of our Lord. and by his grace given to them. Read the history of Saints Raphael, Nicholas and Irene from the Island of Mytilene, for example.
The Reformation matters. Not all is continuity
Also, given your comments in the last couple minutes of the video, I feel compelled to also give a more personal perspective of my practice and “state of mind”. I don’t know what “studies of Italians of [even] more recent eras” show, but when I (and the Catholics that I personally know well) invoke the Saints, I do go before the throne of God in prayer and am asking them to do the same with me (the Saints just do it “better”) just as you acknowledge is licit do with living fellow Christians. Of course, I first honor their heroic sanctity when addressing them before asking them to join my prayers and yes that is a difference but one that is quite justified. I do not think they are “nicer” than God and do not invoke them out of some sort of fear of praying directly to Jesus or the Father or the Holy Spirit.
@@anna_kendrick_lamar7020 They do it better if only because they are more intimately participating in the divine life - the beatific vision. Before any consideration of merit . They are in heaven with the Lord and I am not.
@@anna_kendrick_lamar7020 Asked and answered. See above. Won't keep answering same question over and over
@@anna_kendrick_lamar7020 I will answer you one more time but won't keep going back and forth. There was no dodging. You just weren't reading carefully. I believe that their prayers are more efficacious whether they can offer their merits or not and whether merits effect the level of their beatific vision. Because I have ZERO beatific vision and they all have the beatific vision. So even before considering merits( as I said in my first reply), their prayers are more efficacious. Yes, I believe what the Church teaches about merits, but I was trying to help you see that such teachings are not necessary to believe in the benefits of invoking the Saints. And I am arguing more broadly for the position of the universal Church of East and West so I am not arguing for the maximum Roman Catholic position. I am showing I only need to argue for what is common to the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox position to show this practice was universal from approx late 4th through the reformation. And thus to challenge the Lutheran(and protestant) departure from this practice and belief. And that the reformation rejection of it can only be justified by Sola Scriptura. And a specifically a Sola Scriptura that prohibits practices and beliefs if they are not positively and expressly affirmed in a clear way in Scripture. I.e. a Sola Scriptura that is narrow as to what is Adiaphora. And which breaks (unacceptably in my view) with Sacred Tradition. I am suggesting that Lutherans consider and explain to themselves how such an unacceptable, unbiblical, heterodox practice (and unlike Dr. Cooper many would view as heretical) could have been practiced by the _universal_ christian Church for almost 800-1000 years. And when I say practice, a part of the Mass/Divine Liturgy/Divine Service every Sunday. As part of the official liturgy of the entire praying Church. We aren't talking about private prayers.
@@toddvoss52 from the Eastern perspective, Rome has been in error for 1000 years over the issue of the Roman pope. And vice-versa from the Roman perspective. Either way, we’re forced to admit the Church can be in serious error for a very long time.
Here we have a theologian rejecting the idea that saints have divine attributes who elsewhere affirms theosis the 'Christification' of believers.'
Actually the Orthodox also call him the Baptizer.
I have heard him called that in the Catholic Church.
Prayer is not worship.
Worship is, essentially, sacrifice and eating with your god. That's it.
Worship is not singing. It's not prayer. It's not singing or praying really hard. It's Communion with God, which involves the Trinity.
Yeah, that's the problem I see when protestants and catholics talk about it, they don't use the term with the same sense.
Also, worshipping is slightly different depending if it's catholic or protestant, right?
Catholic worship more through the sacraments, I'd say, since they're channels of grace and things like that.
I could be wrong though.
I'd like to know the protestant view of worshipping.
What makes a protestant, de facto, a christian? Actions? Just the mere fact of saying "I accept Jesus", wha't's next?
@@Lay-Man Follow his commandments and get closer to him everyday
Would you say then that a Hindu who never lays down food offerings to their idols doesn't worship them?
Or that atheists cannot worship reason, for they don't eat with her?
@@j.g.4942 From the ancient near east/biblical understanding of the term "worship" no, they would not be worshipping.
They are also **not** worshipping the One True God either, which is an entirely different problem.
Necromancy!
The state of the dead, according to the word of God.
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof *thou shalt surely die*
{Genesis 2:17}
Man dieth, and wasteth away: yea, man giveth up the ghost, and where is he?
...
So man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their *sleep*
O that thou wouldest hide me in the grave, that thou wouldest keep me secret, *until thy wrath be past* that thou wouldest appoint me a set time, and remember me!
If a man die, shall he live again? all the days of my appointed time will I wait,
👉till my change come.
...
His sons come to honour, and he knoweth it not; and they are brought low, but he perceiveth it not of them.
{Job 14:10, 12-14 & 21}
And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my *flesh* shall I see God.
{Job 19:26}
Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.
{The Preacher 9:10}
Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.
His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.
{Psalm 146:3-4}
Then said his disciples, Lord, if he *sleep* he shall do well.
Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep.
Then said Jesus unto them plainly, "Lazarus is dead."
{John 11:12-14}
...
Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection
👉at the last day.
Jesus said unto her, "I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet *shall* he live:"
{John 11:24-25}
But go thou thy way till the end be: for *thou shalt rest* and stand in thy lot *at the end of the days*
{Daniel 12:13}
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him *should not perish* but have everlasting life.
{John 3:16}
And *the serpent said* unto the woman, *Ye shall not surely die*
{Genesis 3:4}
Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down *in the midst of the stones of fire*
{Ezekiel 28:14}
^
(satan always turns the tables on God, for he is the father of lies.)
The sinners in Zion are afraid; fearfulness hath surprised the hypocrites. Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings?
He that walketh righteously, and speaketh uprightly; he that despiseth the gain of oppressions, that shaketh his hands from holding of bribes, that stoppeth his ears from hearing of blood, and shutteth his eyes from seeing evil;
{Isaiah 33:14-15}
If anyone errors in their understanding of this doctrine of the dead, then they will in no way be led to the understanding of the truth, for it will be a stumblingblock unto the decernment of spiritual things, including soilterology and eschatology.
Wasn’t even his objection 😂
@@FosterDuncan1
Cognitive dissonance?
I’m open to prayers to the saints but his argument had little to do with necromancy…
All those verses are great. One problem. Something very very very very important happened that changed our relationship to death. One might even say someone conquered death itself.
I’m not even Catholic and I have concerns about praying to the saints and Mary but talk about missing one of the most important things Jesus did.
@@thanevakarian9762
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
It has ALWAYS annoyed me, even when I wasn’t Lutheran and more non-denominational, when I’d hear John described as a “Baptist,” like it’s supposed to prove the Baptist Church is the true church because the name is actually in the Bible (MORMONISM??? 🙃). It also annoys me today because it sets up a wrong impression about baptism in general. It can be argued that many people have a view of baptism that really aligns more with John’s view as a symbol of repentance, rather than Jesus and, quite frankly, Paul’s view as an act of spiritual circumcision which sets people apart FOR the forgiveness of sins.
Hopefully there can be at least some interaction with RC scholars if you're going to address these topics on occasion. The reformed have been addressed and debunked.
Scholars or apologists? Because I tend to see pretty different assertions from those groups.
@@DrJordanBCooper Good point!
@@DrJordanBCooper scholars for sure. Michael Lofton at Reason and Theology and Trent Horn have both offered replies. And Trent I believe has even offered to debate.
@@StayFaithful13 To avoid a more or less complete waste of time, I would suggest a Catholic Scholar from the Thomistic Institute such as Fr. Thomas Joseph White or Fr. Legge.
thomisticinstitute.org/#home-section
Fr. White is renowned and would be hard to book and is not exactly inclined to do TH-cam debates - so another and perhaps better fit is an even younger scholar - Fr. Peter Totleben at the Pontifical College Josephinum in Ohio. Who is very polite guy but will engage with all points. He at least did appear on Reason and Theology TH-cam discussion although that was a very friendly environment. So maybe he would do it.
pcj.academia.edu/PeterTotleben
@@StayFaithful13 Although if it is going to be a non-scholar, then Michael Lofton or Eric Ybarra would be good choices. And I suppose Trent Horn although I have not watched or read his stuff.
Quelle question! A quoi sert-il de prier les saints ? Si tu poses cette question, c’est que tu ne pries jamais , en vérité. Les saints nous accompagnent , je le certifie : pour moi c’est St Victor, le martyr thébain , Il ne m’a jamais fait faux bond . Ah! Ces mal formés de réformés !
Your argument boils down to "it's not in the Bible". But the Bible doesn't say that it is wrong either. So I don't see why your argument is pertinent, because if the absence of something in the Bible means it's wrong, then we shouldn't even drive cars or use vaccines. It doesn't really make sense. Perhaps all the prayers in the Bible are prayers of worship and not of veneration, but it is also true that all the boats in the Bible are made of wood and not of metal. Does it mean that boats made of metal are not possible?
Finally, there is an infinite distance between knowing absolutely everything like God, and knowing just the prayers people make to you. And this knowledge is given to the saints by the power of God, not by their own power.
Lastly, the Hail Mary is in the Bible. Why would it be right to say the Hail Mary when the Virgin Mary is alive, but then just because she's dead then it becomes worship?
Lutherans are fine with traditions not in scripture as long as they don't contradict scripture! We're not Bible-onlyists. :) That being said I'd certainly challenge you to find the final "pray for us sinners" line of the Hail Mary line in scripture. Last time I checked, it was added in the mid-16th century. ;)
@@anna_kendrick_lamar7020 But his argument wasn't that scripture contradicts prayer to the saints. He's argument was simply that prayer to the saints doesn't appear in scripture at all. That's why I say his argument is not good. As you say, things that don't apear in scripture aren't necessarily wrong. Scriptures forbids worshiping angels and anything that isn't God. But praying is not necessarily worshiping. His argument for saying that praying is worshiping is that all instances of prayer in scripture are instances of worship. I'm not convinced it's true, but even if it is, this isn't a good argument, since as I said, just because prayer that aren't worship don't appear in scripture, it doesn't mean that prayer that aren't worship are not possible or good (since again, absence is scripture doesn't mean contradiction with scripture).
How do you know some prayer isn't worship? Prayer to God is worship, true?
@@meditatio7128 Prayer and worship are two distinct things. Praying to God is often done as worshiping, but not necessarily. Worshiping God implies loving him above all things. Someone can pray to God, not because he loves God, but simply in the hope of using God's favor to obtain what he wants. Surely it would be stupid, and God would not respond to such a prayer, but sadly some people pray like that, and it's not worshiping. In fact, you can even pray to God without believing in him. For example, some atheists sometimes pray by saying something like: "God, if you exist and you hear me, please respond". Such a prayer is directed to God, and is done without worshiping and without actually believing in God, but simply with the hope that God may exist.
Praying simply means talking to some spiritual entity. What makes a prayer into a worshiping prayer is the intention. If you pray to someone because you love him above all things, then you are worshiping him. If you pray to someone but you don't love him above all things, then you are not worshiping him.
@@vituzui9070 Would prayer to another god be false worship, or multiple gods, even if you don't put them above all?
It reminds me not to sought non-Catholic sources.
First
It's interesting that Lutheran liturgical calendars are loaded with Roman and Orthodox Saints that asked the Saints in heaven to pray for them during their earthly life. 99 percent of them. Also the souls in Christ heavenly have the fullness of the Holy Ghost and the Mind of Christ. The Lutheran tradition needs to get over the middle age scenario.
Lutherans only call biblical figures "Saint X", though they agree with the usage that all Christians are actually saints. They commemorate many Christians outside of the Bible, including people important only to the Lutheran tradition, as well, but they don't officially use the title of Saint for any of them.
Also, the souls in Heaven still aren't God, and it is no more appropriate to venerate angels (which Paul EXPLICITLY CONDEMNS) as it is to address prayers to humans. The RCC's doctrine of the treasury of the saints is one that imperils souls by teaching another Jesus and another salvation.
By denying prayer to the saints you deny the gospel