Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Christian and Theologically Protestant? Or, sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Fenced Community

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible-believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non-Nicene, non-Biblical heresy.
Register now

Christian Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Sign in to follow this  
Chickenlittle

Question?

Recommended Posts

I am neither Protestant or Catholic. I am simply a Bible believer. My question is this: can anyone show me in the Bible where Jesus prayed to anyone other than His Father? Also, can anyone show me in the Bible where any of the disciples or apostles or Bible authors prayed to anyone other than Jesus or His Father?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I don't believe there are any OT or NT examples of anything like that (praying to someone who is not a member of the Godhead), nor are there any instructions for us to do anything like that.

 

Why do you ask?

 

Thanks!

 

--David

Share this post


Link to post

This article sums it up I think:

Question: "Is prayer to saints / Mary biblical?"

 

Answer:
The issue of Catholics praying to saints is one that is full of confusion.
It is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church that Catholics do not pray TO saints or Mary, but rather that Catholics can ask saints or Mary to pray FOR them
. The official position of the Roman Catholic Church is that asking saints for their prayers is no different than asking someone here on earth to pray for us.
However, the practice of many Catholics diverges from official Roman Catholic teaching. Many Catholics do in fact pray directly to saints and/or Mary, asking them for help – instead of asking the saints and/or Mary to intercede with God for help
.
**
Whatever the case, whether a saint or Mary is being prayed to, or asked to pray, neither practice has any biblical basis.

 

The Bible nowhere instructs believers in Christ to pray to anyone other than God. The Bible nowhere encourages, or even mentions, believers asking individuals in heaven for their prayers. Why, then, do many Catholics pray to Mary and/or the saints, or request their prayers? Catholics view Mary and the saints as "intercessors" before God. They believe that a saint, who is glorified in Heaven, has more "direct access" to God than we do. Therefore, if a saint delivers a prayer to God, it is more effective than us praying to God directly. This concept is blatantly unbiblical.
tells us that we, believers here on earth, can "approach the throne of grace with confidence."

 

declares, "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." There is no one else that can mediate with God for us. If Jesus is the ONLY mediator, that indicates Mary and the saints cannot be mediators. They cannot mediate our prayer requests to God. Further, the Bible tells us that Jesus Christ Himself is interceding for us before the Father: "Therefore He is able to save completely those who come to God through Him, because He always lives to intercede for them" (
). With Jesus Himself interceding for us, why would we need Mary or the saints to intercede for us? Whom would God listen to more closely than His Son?
describes the Holy Spirit interceding for us. With the 2nd and 3rd members of the Trinity already interceding for us before the Father in heaven, what possible need could there be to have Mary or the saints interceding for us?

 

Catholics argue that praying to Mary and the saints is no different than asking someone here on earth to pray for us. Let us examine that claim. (1) The Apostle Paul asks other Christians to pray for him in
. Many Scriptures describe believers praying for one another (
;
;
;
). The Bible nowhere mentions anyone asking for someone in heaven to pray for him. The Bible nowhere describes anyone in heaven praying for anyone on earth. (2) The Bible gives absolutely no indication that Mary or the saints can hear our prayers. Mary and the saints are not omniscient. Even glorified in heaven, they are still finite beings with limitations. How could they possibly hear the prayers of millions of people? Whenever the Bible mentions praying to or speaking with the dead, it is in the context of sorcery, witchcraft, necromancy, and divination—activities the Bible strongly condemns (
;
). In the one instance when a "saint" is spoken to, Samuel in
, Samuel is not exactly happy to be disturbed. It is clear that praying to Mary or the saints is completely different from asking someone here on earth to pray for us. One has a strong biblical basis; the other has no biblical basis whatsoever.

 

God does not answer prayers based on who is praying. God answers prayers based on whether they are asked according to His will (
). There is absolutely no basis or need to pray to anyone other than God alone. There is no basis for asking those who are in heaven to pray for us. Only God can hear our prayers. Only God can answer our prayers. No one in heaven has any greater access to God's throne than we do through prayer (
). ~GotQuestions.org

 

You might also like to check these links out: https://www.gotquestions.org/worship-saints-Mary.html // https://www.gotquestions.org/praying-to-angels.html

 

**Here's a famous Mary prayer to read as an example, the Prayer to Our Lady of Perpetual Help. I've heard many similar prayers to Mary like this. Does it sound to you like the prayer is directed to God (through Mary), or that the vast majority of the prayer is directed to Mary alone? IMHO, almost all of it seems to be directed to Mary alone. (I apologize ahead of time if you find what you are about to read as highly offensive as I do. Again, I posted it to show that the official position of the RCC, that was stated above, is hardly the practice :RpS_mad:).

Behold, O Mother of Perpetual Help, at thy feet a wretched sinner, who has recourse to thee and trusts in thee. O Mother of mercy, have pity on me; I hear all men call thee the refuge and
of sinners: be therefore my refuge and my hope. Help me for the love of
Christ: hold out thy hand to a fallen wretch, who commends himself to thee and dedicates himself to be thy servant forever. I praise and thank God, who of His great mercy hath given me this confidence in thee, a sure pledge of my eternal salvation. Alas, it is only too true that in the past I have fallen miserably, because I did not come to thee. I know that with thy help I shall conquer; I know that thou wilt help me, if I commend myself to thee; but I am fearful lest in the
I shall forget to call upon thee and so I shall be lost. This grace, then, do I ask of thee; for this I implore thee, as much as I can and know how to do; namely, that in the assaults of
I may ever run to thy protection and may say to thee: Mary, help me; Mother of Perpetual Help, permit me not to lose my God.

 

Hail

 

O Mother of Perpetual Help, grant me ever to be able to call upon thy powerful name, since thy name is the help of the living and the
of the dying. Ah,
most pure,
most sweet, grant that thy name from this day forth may be to me the very breath of life. Dear Lady, delay not to come to my assistance whenever I call upon thee; for in all the temptations that assail me, in all the necessities that befall me, I
never leave off calling upon thee, ever repeating: Mary, Mary. What comfort, what sweetness, what confidence, what tenderness fills my
at the sound of thy name, at the very thought of thee! I give thanks to our Lord, who for my sake hath given thee a name so sweet, so lovable, so mighty. But I am not content merely to speak thy name; I would utter it for very love of thee; it is my desire that love should ever remind me to name thee, Mother of Perpetual Help.

 

Hail

 

O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of every
that
grants us in our misery; it is for this
hat He hath made thee so powerful, so rich, so kind, that thou mightest assist us in our miseries. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners, if they but come unto thee; come once more to my assistance, for I commend myself to thee. In thy hands I place my eternal salvation; to thee I entrust my soul. Enroll me among thy most faithful servants; take me under thy protection and it is enough for me: yes, for if thou protect me, I shall fear nothing; not my sins, for thou wilt obtain for me their pardon and remission; not the
spirits, for thou art mightier than all the powers of hell; not even Jesus, my Judge, for He is appeased by a single
from thee. I fear only that through my own
I may forget to recommend myself to thee and so I shall be lost. My dear Lady, obtain for me the forgiveness of my sins, love for Jesus,
and the
to have recourse to thee at all times, O Mother of Perpetual Help.

 

Hail

 

You can read AND listen to the above here.

 

--David

Edited by David Lee
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

OP:

The elevation of Mary or any other human being dead or alive is not biblical scriptural or doctrinally sound.

Don't bother concerning yourself with the official Roman position of anything.

Authority is found in the Bible and the Bible alone.

Your first sentence both interests and confuses me. I guess it's okay to get you started but eventually you're going to have to decide who you are.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Churches will not get you to heaven. The word of God will. I am a bible believer. I do not trust traditions of men; neither did Jesus. Both Catholic and Protestant Churches have a bloody history. I am not saying that all churches are bad. But, I believe in Jesus + Nothing. I can always depend on his words. Churches can and are compromised. His words cannot be compromised.

Share this post


Link to post
I am neither Protestant or Catholic. I am simply a Bible believer.

 

That would mean you're Protestant non denominational. You're not for Rome so you're Protestant, just not fully part of a Protestant denomination.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Churches will not get you to heaven. The word of God will. I am a bible believer. I do not trust traditions of men; neither did Jesus. Both Catholic and Protestant Churches have a bloody history. I am not saying that all churches are bad. But, I believe in Jesus + Nothing. I can always depend on his words. Churches can and are compromised. His words cannot be compromised.

 

Theocracy was more to blame than Protestants themselves, that's how world governments are, even when their laws come the Bible. Rome is nothing more than theocracy, tyrants hiding behind a twisted form of Christianity.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

Theocracy was more to blame than Protestants themselves, that's how world governments are, even when their laws come the Bible. Rome is nothing more than theocracy, tyrants hiding behind a twisted form of Christianity.

 

That's very true. I think Martin Luther was the first to talk about the Left Hand Kingdom ( the secular, political realm) and the Right Hand Kingdom ( the Christian Church) as two separate entities, both established by God, but both meant to fulfil very different functions. The bishops arrogated political power that was not theirs to take. Luther said that the bishops had the same authority any pastor would have: the authority to preach the Word, administer the Sacraments and the authority to excommunicate blatant sinners and to receive the repentant back into the Church.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Again, I have to agree. It has always been a puzzle to me that the most educated and learned scholars of their time rejected Jesus. No churches during that time, but organized religion such as the Sanhedrin, Scribes, etc. Even Paul of Tarsus rejected Jesus until meeting Him on the road to Damascus, Gamaliel, even in modern times, is considered the greatest Jewish teacher that ever lived. The book of Acts states that Paul studied at the feet of Gamaliel, who also seems to have missed the real Jesus.

In other words, these great scholars had been waiting for their Messiah, studying the Word and the Signs of his coming, for centuries, and when He appeared, they all missed it. I think this is a reason I do not trust organized religion or churches. When Jesus comes again, will our Scholars miss a second time?

There were 125 major prophecies predicting the first coming of Jesus, including His crucifixion, yet the "wise fools" got "fooled" and missed it. The truth of his first appearance is so real in the OT that even an uneducated person could not misidentify Jesus, but the wise did. Hal Lindsey wrote a book called "The Messiah", a small book that explores the subject. It is an astounding book that is a must read for Christians, because it explores this truth, and settles once and for all the Messiahship of Jesus, according to the Word.

The truth is always in His Word, but organized religion, synagogues, churches etc. have lost my trust. They seem to miss the truth too often.

 

Share this post


Link to post

What I meant by the question" when Jesus comes again, will the scholars miss it?" Is that the Catholic Church "spiritualizes" much of the Book of Revelation; so do many of the Protestant churches. (Rather than "miss it", I should have said "miss the truth"). I find this amazing, since the 125 prophecies all came true regarding His first appearance. Not one prophecy was "figurative" nor "metaphor", yet many scholars today still insist that the hundreds of prophecies regarding Christs "second" coming is only figurative.

Now I ask this question, "If the prophecies regarding Christ's first coming were real, and every prophecy came to pass, is there any reason to not accept that the hundreds of prophecies regarding his second coming would not also be real, and come to pass? Is God trying to trick us by hiding prophecies in mumbo jumbo metaphor?

Yes, we will all see his second coming, but I would not be shocked if some scholars will be there to still deny It. They may even believe it is a UFO.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

When Jesus comes again, it'll be obvious to the world and just like at His first Advent, at His Second Coming, the world will hate Him for it. The Devil's time is short. The World has finite time and soon there will be a New Creation, where sin and death will be no more.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Again, I have to agree. It has always been a puzzle to me that the most educated and learned scholars of their time rejected Jesus. No churches during that time, but organized religion such as the Sanhedrin, Scribes, etc. Even Paul of Tarsus rejected Jesus until meeting Him on the road to Damascus, Gamaliel, even in modern times, is considered the greatest Jewish teacher that ever lived. The book of Acts states that Paul studied at the feet of Gamaliel, who also seems to have missed the real Jesus.

In other words, these great scholars had been waiting for their Messiah, studying the Word and the Signs of his coming, for centuries, and when He appeared, they all missed it. I think this is a reason I do not trust organized religion or churches. When Jesus comes again, will our Scholars miss a second time?

There were 125 major prophecies predicting the first coming of Jesus, including His crucifixion, yet the "wise fools" got "fooled" and missed it. The truth of his first appearance is so real in the OT that even an uneducated person could not misidentify Jesus, but the wise did. Hal Lindsey wrote a book called "The Messiah", a small book that explores the subject. It is an astounding book that is a must read for Christians, because it explores this truth, and settles once and for all the Messiahship of Jesus, according to the Word.

The truth is always in His Word, but organized religion, synagogues, churches etc. have lost my trust. They seem to miss the truth too often.

Faith comes through hearing. But for Paul there was a more abrupt revalalation to the truth of Christ.

By worldly standards God's truth is foolishness, God's truth is spiritually discerned and the world is spiritually blind. Like when Nicodemus couldn't understand how one could be born again, many Jews had there own idea of what the Messiah would be like while those that where awake in the spirit by God saw Christ for who he really is.

 

Matt. 16:15-17 "But what about you?" He asked. "Who do you say I am? "

Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not taught to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.

John 9:35-41 and 2 Cor. 4:3-4 are other good examples.

 

We also have to consider election or lack of. It's the sheep, the elect that will come to Christ the nonelect are blind and incapable of receiving truth.

 

​​​​​​​Now by all means you should aboslutly question every church and test it with Scripture, but don't dismiss every denomination as false.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
What I meant by the question" when Jesus comes again, will the scholars miss it?" Is that the Catholic Church "spiritualizes" much of the Book of Revelation; so do many of the Protestant churches. (Rather than "miss it", I should have said "miss the truth"). I find this amazing, since the 125 prophecies all came true regarding His first appearance. Not one prophecy was "figurative" nor "metaphor", yet many scholars today still insist that the hundreds of prophecies regarding Christs "second" coming is only figurative.

Now I ask this question, "If the prophecies regarding Christ's first coming were real, and every prophecy came to pass, is there any reason to not accept that the hundreds of prophecies regarding his second coming would not also be real, and come to pass? Is God trying to trick us by hiding prophecies in mumbo jumbo metaphor?

Yes, we will all see his second coming, but I would not be shocked if some scholars will be there to still deny It. They may even believe it is a UFO.

 

When Christ returns their time of denial is over, all they will have left is guilt and punishment.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Topics

    • Poll Question: The Rich man and Lazarus Parable or Not?

      Is the story of the Rich man and Lazarus a parable and does it really make a difference?  Wouldn't the story still teach the same truths even if is a parable?   John Calvin held the view that it is not a parable but he also states "But that is of little consequence, provided that the reader comprehends the doctrine which it contains."

      in New Testament

    • Federal Judge Orders Removal Of Citizenship Question From 2020 Census

      By Kevin Daley - A federal judge in New York barred the Trump administration from including a citizenship question on the 2020 census questionnaire. The decision appears to have significant implications for a related matter the Supreme Court is poised to decide in the spring. “The attempts by the Trump administration to mandate a question about citizenship were not rooted in a desire to strengthen the census process and would only undermine our immigrant communities,” New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement. “Inciting fear in our residents is not only immoral, but also ill-conceived.” The Constitution mandates a census every ten years to apportion seats in the House of Representatives among the states. Population is also used as a basis for rewarding federal aid. A coalition of Democratic cities, states, and interest groups challenged the addition of a citizenship question to the census questionnaire in April 2018, warning it would discourage minority participation. An incomplete survey of minority populations, the plaintiffs feared, would result in diminished federal funds and congressional representation for urban areas. The plaintiffs charged that the addition of the citizenship question violated the Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), a federal law establishing protocols for the issuance of regulations. In his Tuesday decision, U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman accepted the plaintiffs’ APA claims while rejecting their constitutional arguments. “[Ross] failed to consider several important aspects of the problem; alternately ignored, cherry-picked, or badly misconstrued the evidence in the record before him; acted irrationally both in light of that evidence and his own stated decisional criteria; and failed to justify significant departures from past policies and practices — a veritable smorgasbord of classic, clear-cut APA violations,” Furman wrote. Elsewhere in the decision, Furman said Ross was not truthful about his motives for adding a citizenship question. Though the secretary initially said publicly that the question was added at the request of the Department of Justice, subsequent evidence showed Ross discussed the matter with White House aides far earlier than initially understood. “Finally, and perhaps most egregiously, the evidence is clear that Secretary Ross’s rationale was pretextual — that is, that the real reason for his decision was something other than the sole reason he put forward in his memorandum,” Furman wrote. Former President Barack Obama elevated Furman to the federal bench in 2012. The plaintiffs sought a deposition from Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross at a previous phase of the litigation. The Department of Commerce oversees the Census Bureau, and Ross himself authorized the addition of the citizenship question. Though Furman authorized the Ross deposition, the Supreme Court intervened to stop it in October 2018. Shortly thereafter in November 2018, the high court agreed to decide what evidence Furman could rely upon when making his decision. When plaintiffs challenge agency action in court, the agency itself generally turns over the body of documents and evidence it relied upon to make its decision. Those writings are called the administrative record. In most cases of this nature, the court will make its decision based only on the administrative record. However, Furman allowed the plaintiffs to gather evidence beyond the administrative record to challenge the citizenship question. The Supreme Court agreed to decide whether that decision was correct. The Justice Department may appeal Furman’s decision. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected] Federal Judge Orders Removal Of Citizenship Question From 2020 Census is original content from Conservative Daily News - Where Americans go for news, current events and commentary they can trust - Conservative News Website for U.S. News, Political Cartoons and more. View the original full article

      in Political Conservative News

    • Electrical Question

      This is for the electrical engineers of the group, or at those who fancy themselves in that group.  I have a couple of motion sensor switches I want to install in my bathrooms.  The problem is that nearly nothing in this house is grounded, as it was built in the 50's.  My question is, is it possible, or simply inadvisable, to connect the ground wire of the switch to the neutral wire, which should ultimately be connected to the main ground out at the power pole?  Is this stupidly dangerous, or actually quite doable?

      in Computers & Technology

    • David Hogg Avoids CNN’s Simple Question About Gun Control

      By Nick Givas - Parkland school shooting survivor David Hogg ignored a simple question about gun control and background checks on CNN’s “New Day” Tuesday and refused to answer directly. Host Alisyn Camerota asked Hogg if universal background checks would have prevented the tragedy at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School and he failed to come up with a clear answer. “I think there’s many instances and instances of gun violence that could have stopped further acts of gun violence. There’s 40,000 people that die of gun violence every year and a very small minority of them end up being in school shootings,” he replied. “When we’re talking about hardening our schools and different things, what we’re not talking about is how we’re going to make our communities safer. When we’re talking about school safety we’re neglecting the thousands of students that die either coming to school or coming back from school every day or simply just outside their house.” “Our congressmen and our elected officials have said that they don’t care about them or their violence because of the zip code they live in or the number of figures in their bank account,” Hogg continued. “And if we really want to start talking about a national emergency like the president likes to talk about, 40,000 Americans dying annually from gun violence is a pretty damn good one to start out with.” Hogg then claimed the Parkland shooting could have been prevented but didn’t provide details on what could have stopped it. He also blamed the NRA for the violence and accused them of trying to “benefit” from mass shootings. “It is an issue that is non-partisan. At least, I would hope so, considering the fact that both Democrats and Republicans die from gun violence. Bullets don’t discriminate and neither should our legislators. No legislator should look at these laws and say to themselves, oh I can’t vote on that because I’ve taken campaign contributions from the NRA. That’s what they’re thinking,” he said. “The American people need to wake up and realize again and again, the reason these laws are not getting passed — the reason why — for example, disarming people like the shooter at our high school could have happened through an extreme risk protection but didn’t is because that law was actively advocated against by the National Rifle Association. That uses due process to disarm people like terrorists and domestic abusers, but they actively try to stop because it stops these things from happening in the first place, which they benefit from. [sic] Because after every single mass shooting, gun sales go up significantly and the NRA benefits from that.” Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected] David Hogg Avoids CNN’s Simple Question About Gun Control is original content from Conservative Daily News - Where Americans go for news, current events and commentary they can trust - Conservative News Website for U.S. News, Political Cartoons and more. View the original full article

      in Political Conservative News

    • Need help with an apologetics question re: Old Covenant

      I was talking with a somewhat liberal Catholic who has also attended the Eastern Orthodox for a period of time.  He said that he didn't believe in the Catholic notion that if you commit one mortal sin you go to hell, but that there was certainly greater and lesser sins.  I said that I believed all sins were mortal in a sense, in that we all deserve hell for our sins. He said that if that were the case, then Christians would be worse off then under the Old Covenant where you could sacrifice animals to atone for sin and Gentile God-fearers could be saved.  I asked what was the point of Jesus coming and dying if some of us could be a sinner that was "not really that bad", but beyond that I blanked out on how to answer his point.   Any input would be greatly appreciated if only so I can answer myself in my own mind. 🙂

      in Apologetics and Theology

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.