Is Veneration of Saints Worship: Serious Answers to Protestant Questions 

What value does veneration of saints add to one's salvation. Isn't Jesus Christ enough?

Christ is enough- and far more than enough- but He is not barren. He is fruitful and is the firstborn of a great "many" (Romans 8:29). In Christ, we are new creatures- and as the Father takes pleasure by the Spirit in His new creatures, so also do we, having the mind of Christ, take similar pleasure. We do not know the saints besides Christ or in addition to Him, but in Him and through Him. Christ lives along every thread of His Body- as the Father delights in what is produced for Him in the Son by the Spirit, so also do we. God does not limit Himself to giving us what is simply "sufficient." He gives us far more than anything we can ask or think, as Paul says in Ephesians 3. In our walk with the Lord God gives us countless of His human creatures as gifts to make known His presence and become instruments of grace: (Ephesians 4:7-13) But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ's gift. Therefore it says, "When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men." (In saying, "He ascended," what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower parts of the earth? He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.) And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, I know that Paul is here speaking about ministers in the church and not those saints who have reposed in the Lord, but I think the implied premise of your question would equally hold true for *any* human creature whom God made a minister of grace. Thanks for your comment. :)

@@Seraphim-Hamilton So in a nutshell there's no benefit of venerating saints! Heb 7:25 Therefore He is also able to save forever those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them

@@habarinjema316 That's like saying "in a nutshell, there's no benefit to the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers." After all, is not Christ sufficient to "equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ"? It should be clear that the way in which Christ utilizes His power is by extending Himself into the world through our participation. You yourself- undoubtedly- heard about Jesus from another human creature. Why did you need to hear about Him from a creature? Isn't He sufficient? This is what Paul says- and which, with all love and respect, simply makes no sense whatsoever on your hermeneutic: (Colossians 1:24-26) Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church, of which I became a minister according to the stewardship from God that was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known, the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now revealed to his saints. Yes, Jesus is sufficient. But that all-sufficient power is used specifically through its being given, by the Spirit, to the Body of Christ. Just consider the language of intercession. It is the *Spirit* who is sent into our hearts with the prayer of the Son- the Spirit cries in us "Abba, Father." And Paul calls this the "intercession" of the Spirit." The intercession of Christ for the world is made effective through the participation of the children of God in that intercession, which is possessed through the Spirit. After all, Paul says that it is the *children of God* who are the *hope* for all creation. Why? Isn't Christ all-sufficient? Christ's accomplishment is *precisely in uplifting creatures to share in His joy, His splendor, and His beauty.* And part of that joy, splendor, and beauty is sharing in His redemptive love.

@@habarinjema316 The question of intercession and mediation has been discussed in more depth here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-mSsOBStzi4s.html I have to ask that you not comment back to debate again unless you've watched the above video or a good portion of it. I don't want to be too strict as we're all somewhere on our journey, but I would cautiously suggest to you that these issues are more complex than can be settled by a simple "gotcha" text like 1 Timothy 2:5 or Hebrews 7:22 cited without further comment. No doubt both sides are guilty of this tactic, but I feel as if you did not really respond to anything I said in the video you're now commenting on. In any case, please pray that God would correct any errors that I might have. It is much appreciated. (this is meant seriously.)

Ayeeeee

Thank you!

come home!!

Amen brother, God bless

I think you meant (or I meant) "uncreated life."

°

I explore this in moderate depth here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-T4vpIKRC2FM.html I think Revelation 4-5 shows the heavenly council as it exists at the ascension of the Lord into Heaven. The twenty-four elders correspond to the twenty-four chief priests under the High Priest in the Davidic liturgical reforms. Jesus- who ascends above the sea of crystal as High Priest (the "seven eyes" of the Lamb allude to Zechariah 3, where the engraved letters on the crown of the high priest are called "seven eyes") stands at the head of this system. In my reading, at the beginning of the book these elders are archangels. They cast their crowns before the throne and are the angels active throughout the book's narrative. If one counts, there are precisely twenty-four angels identified in the Apocalypse (subtracting the figure called "Another Angel" who is Jesus acting in His office of Angel of the LORD, the heavenly high priest, to end the old covenant under the administration of angels) who walk off stage after acting. In Revelation 14-16, the Heavenly Sanctuary has been emptied out and is filled with divine glory. The harvest of the saints and the sprinkling of their blood on the world completes the consecration of human beings to the celestial priesthood, where they minister before God until the Second and Glorious Coming. Part of this heavenly ministry is intercession and participation in Christ's ongoing development of creation through the church. On account of the incarnation, we have access to this heavenly court. See video linked at top.

Prayer isn't inherently worship.

Would you give me the timestamp?

He's talking about Colossians 1:24

Hi Joseph, thanks for your comment. As regards the question of access to saints who have reposed in the Lord, see here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-T4vpIKRC2FM.html Words are not always used in an identical way, though here the two uses of "saint" are related. In the context of this discussion, to speak of the veneration of saints is to speak of those who have been commemorated in the life of the Church- having the mind of Christ- as exemplary for Christian life and thus worthy of honor. Your first question is too complex to capture in a comment thread- this video is about the issue of devotion to saints * in principle*, i.e. is it legitimate to speak of any creature in this way. Veneration of saints also precedes formal canonization. But notice that "saint" means "holy one" and that there are certainly degrees of participation in and communion with the Holy Spirit- this is why Paul can speak of certain Christians of "spiritual" disposition in 1 Corinthians in contrast to others of "fleshly" disposition. My point is not that the distinction here is a 1:1 equivalent to what we are speaking of, but that if one becomes a "holy-one" by sharing the holiness of God, there are different degrees of intensity according to which that is shared- degrees which can then correspond to different uses of the word. As to your final question, imagine that you are in a relationship of mentoring and praying for a younger brother in the Lord. You have had a terrific influence on this gentleman's life, so he throws you a surprise party and exclaims that you "saved his life." In this circumstance you are being honored as an exemplar of Christian character because you have taken on a relation of fatherly affection in relation to another believer. While the cultural idiom in which this affection is expressed naturally varies according to your time and place, this is not substantively any different than veneration of saints. This is why I called attention specifically to the language of the family and "devotion." If one can be devoted to one's family without that implying idolatry, then one can similarly be devoted to one's family in the Lord without implying idolatry. The question of whether one has access to those who have passed to the other world- that is a distinct question. After all, it's conceivable that reverence of saints is not strictly idolatrous, but still pointless or wrong for another reason. These issues are addressed in moderate detail in the link above.

Hi Zek, It seems to me that the answer is implied in the framing of your question. There are some instances of reverence and honor (veneration is not qualitatively anything other than the honor paid to any representative type) which are licit and others which are illicit. The liceity of an act of reverence is not contained in the mere form of the act, as is clear from the texts you pointed to. What is it that makes it acceptable in one case and not in another? It is legitimate when the archetype is genuinely present in the representative according to the kind of honor paid. To honor a father as God the Father is idolatry, but all legitimate honor paid to fathers refers ultimately to the Fatherhood of God. This seems a much simpler explanation than to locate the whole moral freight of the act in the forn (i.e. prostration) which requires one to posit otherwise unattested revocations and reinstitutions of the prohibition on prostrating before a creature. The meaning of body language is no more reducible to the form of the sign than is the meaning of language in general. The nature of the problem lies in the fact that both sets of texts are present in scripture- better to find a unifying principle for the whole than to simply select one set as normative and the other as exceptional. The ark of the covenant was "bare" during its residence on Zion, but when it was veiled it was on account of the danger posed by the direct presence of God to flesh. In any case, the question of iconography is a different, though related matter, touching on what constitutes a genuine sign of that which is signified. There is another discussion of that issue elsewhere on the channel, so I don't want to get into it here. A good deal of your comment seems to identify the two issues- the question of whether we are to honor a genuine icon of God is distinct from the question of whether Orthodox and Catholic art are instances of genuine icons. To speak of veneration of *saints* is not necessarily to speak of venerating them through icons- this discussion only deals with the first.

There is no "later rejection."

We venerate icons like we greet each other for the most part. We bow to each other, we greet one another with a holy kiss. We believe these saints are alive and with us in Christ and icons are how we show that. Venerating icons is greeting this great cloud of witnesses like we greet each other in person. At least that’s how I’ve come to understand it. To me that puts things a new perspective that seems much less idolatrous unless you consider how we greet each other idolatrous

Zek- I should also add that I appreciate the careful and precise way you have stated your thoughts- the same goes for the way you are gracious without sacrificing candor. If you would ever like to speak privately (though you are also free to comment here as much as you please), feel free to email me at seraphimhamilton@gmail.com .

@@realityisreality3581 If there is no later rejection, how do you explain the difference between 1 Chronicles 29:20 and Acts 10:25-26?