Praying to Jesus: A Review (Part 2)

The reader of the book under investigation, Praying to Jesus: An Examination, will notice three things before he proceeds very far:

The book is filled with the quotations of men rather than an examination of the Scriptures. (In fact, if the book only examined the Scriptures, instead of being 200 pages, it would be fewer than 100).

Many of the quotes do not pertain to the topic because, as with Wayne Jackson's material, much intentional confusion exists. Praying to Jesus and praising Jesus seem to be equivalent in the book, although they are not in reality. One example of this unjustified link is found on page 18, where Hallenbeck claims \"there is almost perfect union in the bulk of conservative scholarship that our Lord may be addressed in praise and prayer.\" The true student of the Word knows the difference.

If the author were not allowed to mention Acts 7:59, the book would be half its size. Okay, that's a little bit of hyperbole—but not much.

Chapter 1

The chapter begins with four quotes from well-known men of the past—Barton W. Stone, Alexander Campbell, Wendell Winkler, and Thomas B. Warren—all of whom purportedly \"prayed\" to Jesus. In fact, after these four citations, this section concludes with these words: \"These men cried out to our Lord in prayer, fully cognitive of whom they were addressing\" (15).

Yes, but that is precisely the problem—these are men—not the inspired writers of the New Testament. For much of his life, Barton W. Stone believed that Jesus was a created being rather than existing eternally. Campbell provided a horrible answer on baptism to the lady from Lunenburg, Virginia, and accepted the presidency of the missionary society. Wendell Winkler and Thomas Warren produced excellent books and materials, but neither one would claim inspiration.

The reader might ask himself if he would agree with another statement Wendell Winkler made at Polishing the Pulpit in 2004, which Wayne Jackson cited in a Christian Courier article (August, 2010). This is the same event Hallenbeck writes of (15), but he did not include here the question from the audience (nor did he mention it on page 39 when he quotes at length from that speech). Winkler was asked about praying to the Holy Spirit. He answered: \"Would I have sinned against God if I had said to the Holy Spirit: 'Intercede for me, please'? Do you think I've sinned if I make that statement?\" This is an emotional way to state the matter. Usually, the question should be: \"Do I have authority to pray to the Holy Spirit?\" or \"Do I have authority to pray to Jesus?\"

Does Brother Warren argue that Christians ought to pray to Jesus? At the conclusion of a chapter, he lists eight ways in which we ought to pray. Then he emphasizes that we must be willing to forgive others if we expect to be forgiven. Finally, he advocates that we all thank Jesus for the love He manifested in teaching us how to pray (which, by the way, began with, \"Our Father\"). Then he proceeds to thank Jesus: \"O, Jesus, Thou Lamb of God—how deeply grateful we are for Thy love which resulted in the gift of Thy life for us!\" Was this expression of joy intended to teach brethren to pray to Jesus instead of to the Father? Perhaps it could be argued both ways, but many of us simply see it as an expression of thanks and praise.

So, Hallenbeck begins chapter one by quoting from four brethren that he thinks agree with him. Then, he immediately says, \"Yet, some sincere Christians suggest we may not address the Son of God in prayer\" (15). Notice that he did not present a Scriptural argument and then say, \"Yet, some sincere Christians….\" He quoted four uninspired men and then made that statement—as if, since these four brethren said it was all right, that settles it. How did the guys at Apologetics Press miss this flawed manner of trying to make a point? Even if Hallenbeck were right in the use of these quotes, he is still relying on men as authority rather than the Scripture. If he did not intend to do so, why did he begin his book in this fashion?

To be fair, he does cite ten passages of Scripture on the next page (16) but does not provide any exposition of them until later. He does, however, quote Wayne Jackson's 2010 article (which this editor refuted at the time). Jackson makes the case, and Hallenbeck agrees, that Matthew 6:9 was just an outline for a prayer and did not cover all aspects of praying, which is true. However, that fact still does not negate that the One being addressed in prayer is, \"Our Father.\" Where did Jesus or any of the apostles teach brethren to pray, \"Our Savior\" or \"Our Holy Spirit Who inspired the Word\"? That Jesus did not mention every possible thing we could pray for does not somehow authorize us to address in prayer other members of the Godhead.

\"A Word About Scholars\"

Possibly, Hallenbeck anticipates criticism for introducing this topic by quoting four brethren. He states: \"It is suggested by some that to quote uninspired men is, in some way, not a valid means to establish a Biblical premise\" (18). Uh, shouldn't we let the Scriptures establish a Biblical premise instead of mere mortals? He says we use dictionaries and lexicons. We do, but they only define words that are used in the Scriptures. Then he points out that we use translations not done by members of the church. True! But that's the reason for the dictionaries and the lexicons! We are fortunate to live in a time of abundant knowledge and resources.

Dave Miller's son-in-law seems to think that we reject uninspired men and discredit those with whom we disagree (19). No, we all have several sources, both in and out of the church, that we check for their views. We do not reject all that is written because uninspired men wrote it, but neither can it be regarded as authoritative! All such material is viewed in light of, \"What saith the Scriptures?\" What's the man's case for his view? Sometimes, he does not have one; it's just his theology, which is not an acceptable rationale. What Scriptures does he cite for proof of his argument? We cannot vouch for Hallenbeck, but most of us decide Biblical matters on the basis of the best evidence.

Next, he points out that Paul cited uninspired philosophers and poets. He asks: \"Was Paul incorrect because he chose to use an uninspired man to establish a biblical truth?\" (20). This is simply not true. Paul was not using uninspired men to establish Biblical truth; he was showing that they corroborated Biblical truth. One of Hallenbeck's proofreaders must have said something to him because he then went on to say that Paul's \"premise was used in conjunction with Scripture. The secular source only confirmed what God had already taught\" (20). These last two sentences are correct, but apparently the author did not realize they contradict what he already taught.

The Church \"Fathers\"

The author lists several church \"fathers\" who agree with his viewpoint on praying to Jesus, but most of them—indeed, all of them—are irrelevant. The only two early ones he cites are Ignatius of Antioch (A.D. 37-107) and Polycarp (A.D. 69-155). Following is Origen, who was not even born until A.D. 185. The next two sources date from the 300s, then the 8th century, two from the 11th century, and Martin Luther. Assuming that all these agree with Hallenbeck, what of all those not listed, such as Clement of Rome, Papias of Hierapolis, Irenaeus of Lyons, or Clement of Alexandria? What view did they hold? How far back can a pedobaptist go to justify sprinkling in place of baptism? This section basically has no merit. The author then returns to citing various scholars in the church and concludes his first chapter.

Chapter 2

Hallenbeck begins with a half-page quote from Vine in which he defines epikaleo (\"calling upon\") (41). Of course, the greatest significance of that word for this book is its use in Acts 7:59. Vine correctly states that Stephen died, \"calling on the name of the Lord\" (41). But Hallenbeck does not get around to this passage yet. Instead he returns to J.W. McGarvey, who wrote that it is \"an expression equivalent to prayer\" (42, emph. AH). Nothing was cited to prove that assertion. How about some examples where such is the case—besides the main passage in dispute—Acts 7:59? Multitudes of brethren and denominational writers are again consulted. Some of their comments are directly germane to this issue; some were not.

Although he acknowledges that not all conversations involve prayer and that, if two individuals are speaking, then prayer may not be involved, yet Hallenbeck is certain that Acts 7:59 does involve prayer, nevertheless (49-52). Despite devoting an entire chapter to \"prove\" that what Stephen said to Jesus was a prayer, he cannot help himself from introducing the subject early and often. Perhaps, he thinks if he says it enough times, his readers will start to believe it by the time they wade through to the end.

After sharing a load of incomprehensible sophistry about John and an angel, which bounces around from Revelation 19:9-10 to 7:11-12, Hallenbeck somehow concludes: \"Stephen's address to Jesus is the clearest example of prayer to our Lord Jesus\" (52). First of all, if it's that clear, why does he spend so many pages of his book trying to prove it? If Stephen is clearly praying to Jesus, why don't we all see it? And why doesn't the text say it?

Oh, but he claims the text does say it. He quotes from Hugo McCord's translation: \"As they were stoning Stephen, he prayed, 'Lord Jesus, receive my spirit'\" (Acts 7:59). Brother McCord was an outstanding Christian in many ways; as a translator, he was fallible. He refused to use \"only begotten\" for John 3:16 and other passages, which the King James, the New King James, and the American Standard, and the New American Standard all have. Likewise, his use of \"prayed\" is inaccurate. Only the Revised Standard Version and the New International Version chose the word prayed instead of the actual definition, calling upon. Brother McCord did not keep very good company, did he? The Greek word selected by the Holy Spirit for this text is never translated \"prayed\" in any other verse.

Here again Hallenbeck should study the text—not Brother McCord, Brother Warren, and Brother Winkler. In fact, one wonders if Warren and Winkler were even referring to Acts 7:59 in the quotes cited, or were they just comments made in general? Nothing quoted here, however, proves the assertion.

A strange admission is made in this paragraph: \"Without question, Stephen invokes Jesus. Where people divide is whether Stephen was merely talking to or praying to our Savior\" (52). Divided? Why are we divided on \"the clearest example of prayer to our Lord Jesus,\" as Hallenbeck earnestly insisted previously?

But the point is that, since in speaking to Jesus, Stephen made a petition, it must have been a prayer (52). He insists that this is the logical conclusion. Is that true—that if a petition is made during a conversation, then it becomes a prayer? The woman at the well said, \"Sir, give me this water, that I may not thirst, nor come here to draw\" (John 4:15). Was she suddenly praying because she included a request in the conversation? In fact, when Jesus' disciples said, \"Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples\" (Luke 11:1), was that a prayer or a request? Hallenbeck should save his use of \"logic\" for something actually logical.