Praying to Jesus (Questions) (Part 2)
ollowing articpoints of controversy regarding the idea of praying to Jesus were examined last week, leaving one more point from the original e-mail and another that I raised with Marta. Many of those who hold to this view stand guilty of a logical fallacy, which somewhat fits the one usually learned in geometry. It is the case that all right angles are equal; it is not true that all equal angles are right angles. All 45-degree angles are equal to each other, also.
Similarly, when praying, people usually make requests of God. While prayer includes petitioning the Father, we cannot assume that every time someone asked something of Jesus, it constituted a prayer. The mother of James and John made a request of Jesus: "Grant that these two sons of mine may sit, one on your right hand and the other on the left, in Your kingdom" (Matt. 20:21). Although her desire was a request, no one calls it a prayer. The thief on the cross asked Jesus to remember him when He came into His kingdom. No one argues he prayed to Him. Why, then, do some regard Stephen's request of Jesus to be a prayer?
The same fallacy occurs with respect to praise. Any time praise of the Father or of Jesus is given, some jump to the conclusion that it is part of a prayer. Once again, although prayer usually does incorporate praise as part of it, not every compliment of Deity is intended as a prayer. How often have we either said or heard someone else say, in response to good news, "Praise God." Although we might want to offer a prayer to elaborate on that sentiment, those two words do not constitute a prayer. This point is made below.
Confusing Prayer with Praise
Marta: 2 Timothy 4:18; 2 Peter 3:18 and Revelation 1:5, 6 are doxologies and a doxology is a hymn of praise (prayer) to God. In these passages Christ is the recipient of doxologies/prayer.
Gary: I am not aware of anyone who has an objection with singing the praises of Jesus, the Father, or the Spirit. Glorifying them in prayer is also acceptable. But this point is irrelevant with respect to praying to Jesus, which remains unauthorized.
Marta: Doxology – Singing to the Lord Jesus is ok but not praying to Him? So if I sang to the Lord Jesus "I love you" that is ok as long as I don't just speak it without singing it?
Gary: Doxology. Do you really not know the difference between praising someone and praying to Him? Suppose some members of the body of Christ heard a sermon and said to the speaker: "That was an excellent job; you delivered a great sermon today. Everyone in the country ought to hear that sermon. It really meant a lot to me. We are so fortunate to have you as a preacher. Your abilities are truly amazing. You deserve far more than we are paying you." After giving all these praises, would you expect him to tell you, "Stop praying to me"? You would not because you actually do know the difference between offering praise and offering a prayer. Jesus is worthy of glory and honor, first, because He is God and, second, for His willingness to die on the cross. He is the One, by the way, who said to address the Father, not me. Why don't you take Him at His Word? Do you honor Him by doing otherwise?
Marta: You need to differentiate between a doxology and a simple praise to someone. I'll define doxology for you from credible sources if you are unable to know the difference. Let me know. [The reader will notice that there is a zero response to the point made above. This is the way false teachers operate.]
Gary: The Bible does not call words of praise a doxology; you did. So, a definition of a word that is not mentioned in the Bible cannot possibly help. Why don't you stick with what the Bible says? Words of praise do not constitute a prayer, which you obviously realize, or you would not be reaching for information not related to the discussion.
Marta: Because dictionaries and lexicons define what words mean. And plenty of them say the opposite of what you affirm concerning doxologies.
Gary: You ignored the point. A lexicon cannot define a word that is not in the Greek language. Doxology does not occur in the King James Version. If it occurs in yours, tell me where, and then we will worry about definitions.
Marta: Neither does the word "Trinity" appear in the Bible. So your point about the specific word "doxology" is futile.
Gary: The way some people define the word Trinity may differ from what others mean—especially if by it they mean that Jesus was always the Son instead of becoming the Son in the New Testament. You cannot invent a word that the Bible does not use and then define it to suit yourself in order to try to defeat a position with which you disagree. Jesus was praised, and we can both agree on that; we do not agree that all praise constitutes prayer, and you have not addressed that aspect at all. [This would have been my response had Marta not terminated the discussion.]
Praying in the Name of Jesus
At the end of the very first correspondence, after I had answered the four points that have now been presented, I asked a question which gave us a fifth point to discuss.
Gary: Jesus taught His disciples to pray, "Our Father." Was that rescinded somewhere? He told them that, after He was gone, they should ask the Father in His name (John 16:23). I don't understand why it is so imperative to violate these principles.
Marta: Concerning John 16:23 the context has to do with the apostles not asking Him anymore questions concerning His figurative teachings concerning His resurrection (John 16:18). "In that day" refers to when the apostles will see the Lord Jesus after He is resurrected (John 14:19, 20). The conjunction "and" (kai) that begins verse 23 relates to what was stated in verse 22 - the resurrection. "Therefore you too now have sorrow, but I will see you again, and your heart will rejoice, and no one takes your joy from you, and in that day you will ask Me no question." Concerning Matthew 6:9 the apostles already had direct access to the Lord Jesus so it would have been inappropriate for Him to tell them to pray to Him.
Gary: Concerning John 16:23, the conversation of which it is a part begins in John 16:16, where Jesus said, "A little while, and you will not see Me; and again a little while, and you will see Me, because I go to the Father." They wondered what He meant by the phrase, a little while. Jesus repeated what He said (v. 18), and they repeated their question (v. 19). I don't know that this ranks as a figurative saying, at least on a par with the parable of the sower; they were just confused by what He said. Jesus said they would weep and lament while the world rejoiced (referring to His crucifixion and burial), but their sorrow would be turned into joy (when He was raised from the dead and ascended into heaven). Like a woman who rejoices once the child is born, they would forget their sorrows with His death; it would be swallowed up by His resurrection (v. 21). In fact, once they received that joy, no one would be able to take it away from them (v. 22). In that day they would ask nothing (v. 23). What day? Obviously, He refers to the day of His resurrection and (implied) ascension.
How do we know that? First of all, we know it because, prior to His ascension, they did ask Him a question. "Will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" (Acts 1:6). Second, why would they need to ask anything of the Father when Jesus was with them for 40 days before He ascended (Acts 1:1-3)? Therefore, Jesus' main emphasis is on the Ascension after the Resurrection, a much longer period of time than 40 days.
Concerning Matthew 6:9, you are right. But the model was for all at all times—not just the three years of His public ministry.
Marta: Please address what I wrote concerning John 16:23. Matthew 6:9 is an assertion without proof. Again please address what I wrote concerning that there was no need for Him to tell them to pray to Him when He is right there with them.
Gary: If you missed the entire exposition I sent you of John 16:23, which dealt with what you said, I cannot help you. Go back and read it again. My comments were both pertinent and accurate on Matthew 6:9.
Marta: John 16:23. You wrote a lot but didn't deal with what I wrote. Try again. Matthew 6:9: Therefore this text does not forbid praying to the Lord Jesus. Psalm 119:160 teaches that the sum of God's word is truth—not just parts. [He obviously does not want a serious discussion.]
Marta: [From a discussion on another subject]: I don't need to figure anything out.
Gary: If you do not understand the exposition, I cannot help you further. Anyone in the 7th grade or better could understand it. Maybe this is one of those things you don't need to think about.
Marta: Please don't write back anymore. I'll delete it without reading it.
Gary: Like most bullies, you take your marbles and go home when you can't win. [I sent it even though the promise was to delete it.]
The Holy Spirit
Shortly after the first correspondence began, I received a separate communication concerning the Holy Spirit. As usual, Marta ignored what was said and then abruptly terminated that discussion also.
Marta: I saw that you are from the church of Christ. The fact that the Gentiles had the Holy Spirit before they were water baptized proves they were already saved before they were water baptized (Acts 10:44-48).
Gary: You have failed to notice the entire purpose for their receiving the Holy Spirit. Read Acts 11:1-18 and see if you can figure it out.
Marta: Before they were water baptized these Gentiles already:
1. had the gift of the Holy Spirit poured on them (Acts 10:45).
2. were baptized with the Holy Spirit (Acts 11:16).
3. received the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:47).
4. were given the Holy Spirit (Acts 11:17 cf. Acts 15:8).
5. were worshiping in the Spirit (Acts 10:46).
All this and they were still not saved? This is total error to the extreme. To hold to the position that they were not yet saved despite all the above one must do a hatchet job to how words are properly defined.
Gary: What you say in numbers 1-4, I will not argue with at this time. I do disagree with your wording on #5. Verse 46 does not say they were worshiping in the Spirit; it says they spoke with tongues and magnified God. You assume that what you said means the same thing, but it does not. If they were saved by the Holy Spirit coming upon them, then there is a second way to be saved besides what Peter preached in Acts 2:38. How do you explain that? You do not seem to have figured out the reason for the Spirit coming upon them. Try reading Acts 11:1-18 again and see if you can do better.
Marta: Since they had the Spirit and were worshiping (and this worship was proper) then they are worshiping in the Spirit. I don't need to figure anything out (see my points 1-4). It is you who have to figure out if you want to accept how words are properly defined or if you want to go by the man-made teachings of your church.
Gary: You are beginning to reveal your biases when you say you don't need to figure anything out. You have had two opportunities to figure out why this event occurred, and the reason has a great bearing on what took place. In essence, you are saying, "I don't care what the text says or how it ought to be interpreted. I have my belief and don't need to think."
Also, you ignore the fact that the interpretation you are happy with and don't need to think about results in two distinct methods of salvation. I guess you don't need to think about that, either.
Marta: You are the one who ignored my points 1 through 4 and then you say I have to figure things out. Get real.
NIDNTT: When later in Caesarea the first pagans received the Holy Spirit and became members of the church, they also shared in the grace of worshiping and praising God "in other tongues", as again later the disciples of John the Baptist who became believers in Ephesus (Acts 10:46; 19:6) (3:1080, Word - H. Haarbeck).
Marta: You say they weren't worshiping in the Spirit but this says they already received the Spirit and were worshiping. Oh and by the way...notice it reads that their status of being members of the church was based on their reception of the Spirit. Hey Gary...that took place before they were water baptized. No more letters to me please.
Marta refused any response from me, but I will make one here. I did not ignore points 1-4; I agreed with them for the time being. Second, not a word says that Cornelius and his household were members of the church, let alone sharing in the grace of worship. Acts 2:41 and 47 show that Jesus adds those who are baptized to His church. Denominationalists read things into the text that are not there and then castigate those who disagree with them. Not one word in the text says that Cornelius was saved as a result of receiving the Holy Spirit. That is an assumption. Their receiving the Holy Spirit did not save them or place them in the body of Christ, the church.
The purpose for Cornelius receiving the Holy Spirit was to prove that the Gentiles were as acceptable to God as the Jews. Acts 11:1-18 makes that clear, but Marta did not want to either learn that truth—or else did not want to acknowledge it. How ironic to say that one must consider everything that the Bible says on a subject (which is true) (Ps. 119:160) but then refuse to look at verses in the same passage that are relevant!