Veneration, Prayer, and the Possibility of Apostasy: A Dilemma

Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox are known to venerate and pray to those whom they consider to be saints who have died: Cyril of Alexandria, Basil of Caesarea, etc. These traditions also are known to reject the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints: those who come to be saints at one point in life are thereafter capable of apostatizing, losing the salvation which they once possessed.

This leads to a question: do these traditions have grounds for believing that it is impossible that those whom they regard as saints apostatized on their deathbeds? Raising this hypothetical may be thought of as offensive, but if it is possible or may even have happened, the real offense would be against Christ.

Supposing it is possible that some of those whom these traditions regard as saints apostatized, is it not also possible that members of these traditions are venerating and praying to someone who is actually in hell? Orthopraxy depends on orthodoxy. If we cannot be sure someone is orthodox, should that not have implications for one's praxis involving them? Surely, veneration of and prayer to one who may be in hell cannot be obligated. I expect most of the aforementioned traditions would reject this supposition.

What is the alternative? Infallible assurance of another's faith (let alone perseverance) is ordinarily impossible. If these traditions argue that it is not possible that those whom they regard as saints apostatized - if one can have infallible assurance that those who are venerated and prayed to remained saints unto death - such can only be the case if they accept an extraordinary source of and means for such knowledge. I can think of no other possibility than that it somehow has been divine revealed which saints persevered.

The mechanism by which these traditions believe God has revealed those who persevered currently differs among these traditions. For example, papal approval obviously will not be viewed as necessary in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy. Actually, though, while Roman Catholics would argue that papal approval is now required by canon law, the process of canonizing saints is apparently revisable. In fact, it seems that even Roman Catholics admit that papal involvement was not only unnecessary but also entirely absent in the first nine centuries (link). A Roman Catholic, then, would have to be open to defending different mechanisms.

Another consideration is that Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy consist of autocephalous or self-governing churches. This may lead some churches within these broader traditions to venerate as saints those who are not venerated by another church within the same, broader tradition. For example, within the broader tradition of Oriental Orthodoxy, the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo church venerates John of Damascus (link), whereas the Coptic Orthodox church does not. 

This is interesting in that John of Damascus opposed miaphysitism, a Christology typically characterized as distinctive to the tradition of Oriental Orthodoxy. In fact, as a Chalcedonian, John of Damascus is ironically anathematized by the Ethiopian Orthodox. Here, the problem is even more obvious than the hypothetical I posed above: how can one coherently venerate or pray to a theologian whom he regards as having been anathematized?

One possibility is that anathematizations can be lifted. One case of this happening occurred when the Roman pope and Eastern Orthodox patriarch of Constantinople mutually agreed to nullify the anathemas of 1054 (link). This appears to be mental gymnastics, however, and I know of some within the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo church who would sooner admit John of Damascus should be removed from their synaxarium than defend the possibility that John of Damascus is venerable or worthy of hearing one's prayers. 

Another possibility is to suggest that a synaxarium (or parish, priest, bishop, or any other vehicle of communicating a list of saints) is only infallible indirectly, i.e. insofar as those who are listed as saints have been declared so by that which is the direct mechanism of divine revelation - say, a synod.

Regardless, the logical end of each of the aforementioned traditions is a hyper-realization of solo ecclesia. These traditions might speak of "historical investigation" that goes into their decision-making. These traditions might speak of only "recognizing" who already is or is not a saint. But this cannot be. 

Given their rejection of the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, to rule out deathbed apostasies as a live possibility presupposes that these traditions not only have the prerogative of interpreting divine revelation but also have the prerogative of actively creating such ex nihilo, upon which they further obligate the consciences and practices of their members. 

For these traditions, new and public divine revelation is ongoing. They are not merely drawing out inferences from the God-breathed Scriptures but are claiming themselves to be able to draw out the breath of God - through their papal, synodal, or popular voice - at will. Protestations to the contrary will logically entail, as has been pointed out, that members of these traditions could be venerating and praying to someone who is actually in hell.

The Birth of Samuel: Reflections from a Devotional

I'm very grateful that my church has allowed me to lead one of our monthly men's devotional studies in each of the past few years. Last year, I spoke about God's house (link). God then provided my wife and I with a house later in the year. This year, this providential pattern and recent witnessing opportunities at Planned Parenthood led me to speak about Hannah's prayer in 1 Samuel 2:1-10. I thought I would share the thoughts that came from the devotional study and discussion here for anyone who might be interested.

 
Context: The context of this time is the period of the judges, after Israel settled in the promised land, when they were repeatedly lapsing into all kinds of syncretism and idolatry. The Philistines were a thorn in the side of Israel. Actually, Israel was being a thorn in its own side, constantly falling into sin. We see in the first few chapters of 1 Samuel that the priests of the tabernacle were grievously disobeying God. Samuel is the last judge before God gave Israel a king Saul in 1 Samuel 9. That sets the stage for Hannah, whose story we hear in chapter 1. Quick summary:

 
- She was one wife of two, maybe Elkanah took the second because Hannah was barren. Year after year, Hannah could not bear children. The other wife is viewed as a rival: Penninah provoked Hannah about her barrenness.

- Hannah prays to God about her affliction and vows to dedicate her son as a Nazirite (a comment from one of the men in the group led me to think of Hannah as a microcosm of Israel - her affliction in barrenness is like Israel's during the time of the judges and in the future, cf. Isaiah 54:1).

- Eli sees her pray, initially thinks she is drunk, then blesses her. The Lord remembers her and gives her a son. She names him Samuel, for “I have asked for him from the Lord.”

- She weans him, probably for 3 years since she sacrificed a 3 year old bull at the time of his dedication. Much could be said about this. To end chapter 1, as long as he lives, Samuel is “dedicated” or “lent” to the Lord. This leads into Hannah's prayer.

One of the things I learned while preparing this devotional is that Samuel’s name was given because his mother “asked for him from the Lord,” which is interesting because the Hebrew word for "asked" is actually Saul. When Hannah says, “As long as he lives, he is lent or dedicated to the Lord,” the Hebrew word for "lent" or "dedicated" is actually Saul. Hannah "Sauled" Samuel to the Lord. This makes it a bit ironic when later in the book of Samuel, we see Saul is who the Israelites ask for as a king. God already gave the Israelites a true Saul, a good judge. But that wasn’t enough for them. Even when Samuel warned of what kind of king they would receive, they chose that path. God providentially worked it out according to His will - as He does with all things - but not without a little discipline first.

This all sets the stage for Hannah's prayer, which is structured chiastically – everything matches on both ends of the prayer. The first and last parts of the prayer are similar (vs 1-2 compared to the last part of verse 10): Hannah exalts the Lord, her horn, and the horn of the Lord. Hannah and the anticipated Messiah are both exalted. When we exalt God, God exalts us because we are united with Him. Hannah's and her family's faith are contrasted with Eli's in the rest of the chapter. Hannah also anticipates a king - the true king, the Messiah, not a mere human king.

 
Then the prayer is bookended (compare verses 2-4 to verse 9-10a) with references to our salvation by the silence of prideful wicked, our enemies who are also God’s enemies. Their strength or might will be broken into pieces by God. Our God is a rock: rocks are great places to seek refuge, but they can also be used to break idols or enemies of God, like we see the great mountain of God in Daniel 2 or in execution-stonings.

Verse 5 then matches verse 8, where God reverses the fortunes of His people who are oppressed or cursed, whereas the wicked who have exalted themselves are now humbled or forlorn – this brings with it a word of caution to us when we find ourselves in blessed circumstances. Whatever we have, we have received from God, and it can just as easily be taken away from us as it was given to us.

Finally, the center of the prayer is verses 6-7, which emphasize that God is in control of all things. The Lord kills and brings to life; he brings down to Sheol and raises up. The Lord makes poor and makes rich; he brings low and he exalts. As I was studying this passage, I came across Proverbs 30:16, which describes Sheol as "the barren womb." It certainly sounds like Hannah understood that she was a barren woman whose womb was a place of lifelessness, and that life could only come from God. Her conception of Samuel is, therefore, a kind of resurrection from death in which God raises up life from Sheol. This is exactly what God did with us when He gave birth to us again by His Spirit. It's exactly what He did in raising Jesus from the grave. 

 
This gives a whole new perspective on how we can view all the passages in Scripture that speak to the barrenness of woman: Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel, Mary (someone noted Noah was 500 when he finally fathered his sons). For example, because Abraham had already witnessed God’s power to resurrect life from death in bringing the promised son forth from Sarah's lifeless womb, when he was asked to sacrifice his promised son in Genesis 22, he could reasonably expect, as Hebrews 11:19 tells us, that Isaac would be resurrected. His initial lack of faith in seeking out Hagar changed - Abraham should have remembered that God initially brought forth Adam's life from dust as a kind of resurrection (cf. 1 Samuel 2:8, 1 Corinthians 15).

 
One of the comments from the men after I closed my devotional was that we should be careful not to put having and raising children on a pedestal - which is absolutely true. If someone asks you as a married man or woman, "When are you going to start a family," your answer should be, "We started one when we got married." I remember a sermon by Voddie Baucham in which he pointed out that eventually, kids will grow up and leave the father and mother to start their own families. Having and raising kids, while a blessing, is not the be all, end all of life. Eventually, it comes back to where you started: you and your wife.

For any in the church who have anxiety about the issue of barrenness, we have the further encouragement of being adopted as sons and daughters of God. We are all adopted members of our Father's heavenly family in being united to the natural Son. Just so, anyone who is unable to have natural born children (like Voddie Baucham) can consider adoption, which truly grafts a child into an earthly family just like we have truly been grafted into God's family. 

 
Even to those who are not married, we have the encouragement that we can, like the Ethiopian eunuch, rejoice at the prospect of bringing sons and daughters into our family of the church by our witness to them. Earthly family was and should be patterned after the heavenly family. Mother church brings forth sons and daughters only by providing the water of the word, with our Father causing the growth, bringing forth land from water as He did on the third day (!) of creation. We water others by living out God's word of light, being lights before others, which God uses to shine in the darkness of others, just as He did in shining the light of the Truth - the Word of Life, His Son - in us. Likewise, it is God who overcomes physical lifelessness or barrenness that sin has caused. Any kids you give birth to is not by your own power - God kills and raising to life. He gives but can take away. What do you have that you have not received? Be not proud, but humble. Only then will you be exalted.

Update on the Podcast and Reflection

Two new podcasts - one on textual criticism, the other on prayer - have been uploaded in the past few months, and I'm happy to say that, starting with the most recent one, we have been and should from now on be able to record in person with better audio equipment, with plans to go live on camera in the near future and, with it, the possibility of answering live questions, which I would look forward to.

Thus far, it has been an interesting, enjoyable process. I've already written about textual criticism (link) and prayer (link) in the past, but this has been an opportunity to talk out loud about them with friends I've known over half of my life. Before we started the podcast, we agreed its goal should just be that we enjoy each other's company while focusing on books that, with a little critical thinking, will help to sanctify our minds. If the only people who benefit from it is us, that's fair enough, and thank God for it. That's basically how I approached this blog, and I haven't ever regretted it.

At the same time, I wonder where this can lead. Right now, my friends and I know our shortcomings. Personally, I still rely too much on having pre-written material at my disposal while recording. If we were to transition from this to video or to something more ambitious, I need to work on internalizing material in such a way as to recall or speak to it organically. That probably requires a degree of intentionality I can't expend right now, with a new job licence and a wedding in the next few months. But I do look forward to what God has in store, even if it is just many more episodes of getting to chat theology with my friends.

The next episode will be a book of my choosing: David A. Dorsey's "The Literary Structure of the Old Testament."