About the Dead in Christ/Saintly Intercession

This is a question that I haven't really considered in very much depth before interacting with Anglo-Catholicism to some degree, and while I'm pretty convinced that asking for the Dead in Christ's intercession is not Biblical, I do have a few questions and comments for both sides as I've read through some of the threads on this issue.

I have noticed the opposed side sometimes brings up an argument that essentially says the dead in Christ (all dead I would suppose) are unconscious. I've literally never encountered this belief among Christians outside of conservative low church Anglicans, and I was raised amongst the low-churchiest of the the low churchmen (albeit non-Anglican). I've just always been taught that the intermediate state is a sort of spiritual existence, and some Scripture seems to back that up (Luke 16:19-31 comes to mind), both in Baptistic churches and Presbyterian churches. The idea that "falling asleep" means that they are unconscious seems to go beyond the text, especially considering it might just be a common ancient idiom for dying like "passing away" is for us. Not to mention earthly sleep includes dreams, so we could dream even if "falling asleep" was meant literally in some way, and who could know what the dreams of the dead would be? My point is that this is a very weak argument, even if it is true in some sense, so why use it in the first place?

The stronger argument to me is that asking for the dead saints' intercession is attributing some level of omniscience to them. Even if dead saints know about events on earth, they could not know every grave detail. For instance, they might know World War II is underway, but not that Jimmy is hiding in his foxhole asking for St. George to ask God to protect him (which, presumably, several GI's might be doing the same thing). At most, theoretically at least, they could know one person at a time is asking for their intercession, thus nullifying the practical effect of asking for their intercession. I doubt they would even know that because they would be confined to the intermediate state and not allowed to roam the earth freely as if they were angels. I would think that, if they intercede, they intercede in a general manner for the Church and Christians.

The question for the other side is: Why ask a particular saint, or even just generally to all dead in Christ, to pray for you? The prayers of those on earth are heard by Christ just as much as any dead saint's prayers on the basis of his atoning work. Furthermore, if the dead in Christ are conscious and already interceding for Christ's Church in a general manner, why must it be made specific? It just seems the possibility of creating a little pantheon of idolized saints is more dangerous than whatever negligible benefit you may receive from those saints' intercession. After all, we must always be on the lookout even without praying to saints to make sure we are not creating idols, and that would just seem to add another layer of temptation.

To me, I think part of the issue is that Church parties in Anglicanism have caused entrenchment for both sides. Of course, that kind of negative way of building ideas seems to be a common human characteristic rather than a peculiarly Anglican one. In this context, however, the anti-praying to saints low churchmen go beyond even their fellow anti-intercession Protestants in denying consciousness after death and awareness of any earthly events. In their zeal to correct some low church errors, High Church Anglo-Catholics go well beyond a unity of Christian saints both living and dead in prayer and worship to saying the dead saints can hear us and intercede even more effectively than earthly believers can. Just observing here.

 

So what is wrong with this argument?

 

To be honest, I'm a bit confused by it because I've just not really come across it as an argument. The problem with it is that I think the Bible teaches that the dead, before Resurrection, are conscious. I don't how much they know about earth, what's going on in it, or in what way they're conscious, but it doesn't seem to me that the Bible teaches that the dead are literally "asleep." I think trying to connect the few phrases about the dead "falling asleep" to a state of unconsciousness or inactivity is a stretch at best. I don't think one should build an argument based off some pretty shaky ground. If that's your only reason for not praying to dead saints, then I think it leaves you pretty open to being convinced.

After looking into it with a little more depth, it seems Calvin and Luther held to this view, and also a small chunk of Anglicans, but not many beyond that.

 

My apologies to Rudyard Kipling, but in my reading of the bible, i cannot agree with the idea of sleeping for any aeon or two. paul tells us that to be absent from the body is to be in the presence of God...our Lord's parable of Lazarus and the rich man, our transfigured lord's conversation with Moses and Elijah, Samual's conjuring by to Witch of Endor...none of these instances suggest a long nap on the otherside imo.

 

My point exactly. This argument seems only to be a reaction to veneration of the saints, and sacrifices too much Scripture on the grounds of a few passing phrases. The idea that this is a reaction is pretty well supported by the fact only first generation reformers reacting to Roman Catholicism and then later Anglicans reacting to Anglo-Catholicism hold to it.

I'm just curious about some of these arguments because I just legitimately have not encountered them. Part of the problem is I've seen quite a few lead off their opposition to praying for the dead's intercession on this basis and seems like a pretty flimsy argument. There are lots of good reasons to not believe it's a good idea to pray to saints without saying the saint is unconscious.

 

About the Dead in Christ?
The Orthodox put it best, in my opinion,' The souls of the righteous after death are in light and rest, with a foretaste of eternal happiness: But the souls of the wicked are in reverse of this.( Orth. Catechism.p.70.)

Bishop Andrews prays thus,' Grant O Lord that we might find mercy and favour with all thy saints who from the beginning of the world have pleased Thee in their several generations, Patriarchs ,prophets, martyrs and every just spirit made perfect in the faith of Thy Christ from rightous Abel even unto this day'! Do Thou give them and us rest in the region of the living, in the bosom of our fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

 

you have some great questions EC. I recall there veing a rather lively discussion on the topic of sleeping saints and intercession before that may also give some insight as well, founs here:http://forums.anglican.net/threads/praying-to-saints-question.330/

 

I do not come armed with an answer (other than to note that presumably part of the reason for asking saints over the living is that the former have already 'won their crown' and the prayers of the righteous man etc...) but I do have some 'thinking points' as it were.

Interceding with intermediaries of course was a common practice in Roman political life- chains of command and all that- the saints of course are some of the closest imitators of Christ, and their sanctity is beyond question...and they do have the advantage of being wholly human- they understand in a way that an early view of God which may have seen him in far more remote terms perhaps was understood not to. How far did the earliest Christians see God in terms of a personal affective relationship? It seems to be something that only really emerges in the mediaeval period- and probably then because its around this time people start thinking in terms of 'individuals'. I think it unlikely that one can understand ones relationship with God in private terms if you are not accustomed to thinking of yourself as a private individual.

Which is another point isn't it. In the early church, worship and intercession...these are collective activities, and the Body of Christ is a collective entity- and if we start from the belief that the deceased are actually alive- there is this continuity of worship from the church militant and the church triumphant.

Basically to the ancient people, there isn't an absolute distinction between 'the dead' and 'the living'. In the platonic worldview of course, because the forms of thought were general and abstracted from the the particularity and imperfections of physical existence, they were in effect, 'more real' than the physical things that merely participated in this intellectual reality. Casting off the body is one way of escaping the imperfections of the body- even though Christians of course modify this somewhat, following saint paul and the idea of the 'transformation' of the physical body in (1?) Corinthians.

God of course in this view is the 'most real' thing of all, being the some of all truth, beauty, goodness etc. the saints, by participating more closely with God, that is, true reality- the saints are far closer to this than we mixed people on earth.

But there is something else of course that keeps up the living communion between the living and the dead which many Anglicans don't automatically remember about our ancestors- relics. When you're holding a bone of St. Antony, or the umbilical cord of St. Ignatius- it's pretty hard to say you are not in contact with the saint- you're touching them, and like Jesus' coat with the woman and the blood disorder, or the scraps of cloth that touch Paul's skin and somehow take on damn near magical properties in Acts 19 it's a way of feeling profoundly close to the living presence of God.

The other thing is that maybe saints are able to do this for God because he has always seemingly delighted in having humans share in his work and undertake tasks for him...to intercede in heaven is a privilige which by some means God enables the saints- because of course all are one in Christ etc. etc.

 

Alcibiades and highchurchman;

I appreciate the responses. I've only really considered in the light of Roman Catholic vs. Protestant debates, so it's interesting to see the different issues brought up in a different context.

I have no real problem with the idea that the dead saints worship with us, or even pray for us in a general sense. We pray for the whole estate of Christ's Church without knowing all of the people that involves. I can imagine, given multiple Biblical allusions especially in Revelations, that the Dead in Christ are worshiping and praying together with those on earth. My only problem is with the idea of praying to them to ask for their prayers, or that they have more merit than we do to ask for anything in prayer.

 

It is confusing, I admit. How-and-ever, as far as I can see the Church in Britain has carried on the belief and practice of prayers to the saints for nearly two thousand years, we don't ask them to use the prerogatives that naturally belong to Christ, the Third Person of the Trinity . I can't see our enthusiasm, if we have erred, does any injury!

 

@Elizabethan Churchman

from http://www.ignitumtoday.com/2013/09/15/its-biblical-to-ask-saints-to-pray-for-us/

 

Thanks for the thread link. That thread did bring up an argument that I would agree with in relation to the falling asleep passages: That the Dead in Christ are at rest, so we should not disturb them. However, they can be at rest, worship and pray at the same time. Worship and prayer are certainly restful activities.

I just do not see how those passages lead to the idea that we can contact the dead in Christ. I do not doubt that they are aware of events on earth in a general manner or that they pray for the Christian Church. What I do doubt is that we can contact them.

 

@Elizabethan Churchman

Why not in a specific manner? What differentiates "general" and "specific" here? Does God actively say to them, "Oh, I'll let you see this, but whoops, cover your eyes now!" I think not.

Everything depends on this. Once you recognize that they are "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4) and share in God's omniscience, the supposed issue of contacting them falls away.

 

When I say "general," I mean they know things in a similarly limited manner to us. They are still human, after all. I disagree with how you are construing 2 Pt. 1:4; I do not think that implies that they share in God's omniscience anymore than it means that they share His omnipotence. Why believe that they are omniscient anymore than they are omnipotent? We know what is going on in the world through the news in a "digest" form. They might be able to observe the wide swath of earthly events in a similar manner. They can watch as hosts make their way across fields of battle without knowing the names of every Private in that host. That would in no way limit the effects of their prayers anymore than us not knowing the name of every police officer limits the effectiveness of our prayers for all magistrates.

 

@Elizabethan Churchman

I just don't understand why God would intentionally limit their knowledge. Their omniscience wouldn't interfere with anything, it wouldn't impede on God's sovereignty, and it could help a specific someone in a specific situation.

There's a pretty substantial difference between omniscience (which pertains to knowledge) and omnipotence (which pertains to actual power). On omnipotence, Isaiah 40:25 would certainly apply. No one's power can ever equal God's (if it did, then that person would be a god), but (as far as I know) there's no Scriptural basis for saying that God couldn't allow someone to share in His knowledge.

 

The limited nature of our existence inherently prohibits us from knowing everything. Our knowledge faculties, as human being, are inherently limited. We can only know the universe from our limited perspective, and that inherently limits our knowledge. God can be in all places at once, but we can only be in one place at any particularly point in time. That in itself limits what we can know. I see know reason why a human spirit would be able to be in more than one place at one time.

 

Another thought, of course is about what 'humanity' might mean in this case.

Whatever 'humanity' is, it has been assumed fully by Christ, and ascended with him back to heaven. The person of Jesus Christ should be the controlling definition of what 'true humanity' looks like- and he supposedly did some very special things that are well beyond 'ordinary human' abilities.

But it happens to humans too- think of the virgin birth, it is an obvious human limitation that women are not capable of auto-begetting a child, and even things that do reproduce asexually only produce clones. Yet an empty womb can suddenly become, in a lovely orthodox phrase 'wider than the heavens' and accommodate the logos as a human baby.

A miraculous occurrence...why assume that our 'humanity' should not be subject to such miraculous effects post-mortem? If anything, the hints of Scripture would suggest that humanity isn't actually fully realized by living humans because it is not yet sufficiently divinized, wouldn't you say?

 

@Elizabethan Churchman

Assuming that you are correct (which is not necessarily certain for those in Heaven), one still doesn't have to be in more than one place in order to know everything. If I were to sit in a control room with access to cameras all over the world, I could know everything that's going on -- but I would still be in one place.

Why can't Heaven work in a similar way?

 

[/quote]The limited nature of our existence inherently prohibits us from knowing everything. Our knowledge faculties, as human being, are inherently limited. We can only know the universe from our limited perspective, and that inherently limits our knowledge. God can be in all places at once, but we can only be in one place at any particularly point in time. That in itself limits what we can know. I see know reason why a human spirit would be able to be in more than one place at one time.[quote/]
Elizabethan Churchman,

That is why we have Bishops, in cases of doubt, (collectively) we should first seek what the doctrine of the Anglican Faith is and understand that it comes from comes from our fathers over the years.We have today the distillation of two thousand years of Catholic experience and it is for us to at least give antiquity and practice a chance.

 

Can someone explain to me the difference between the saints being asleep and being awake in God but unable to communicate with the natural world? I'd like to know the dangers of adopting the Sleep perspective before I go all-in on it. On the other hand, going the other way to say they're awake, makes us vulnerable to the Roman Catholic arguments Matthew is bringing forth.