Do Guarding Angels exist?

[Cathode]

Cathode, you are again answering with devotional tradition rather than Scripture. The passages you quoted do not teach angelic patronage, angelic bonding, or angelic reliance. They teach angelic ministry under God’s command. “Their angels” in Matthew 18:10 does not mean personal guardian‑angel relationships or devotional practices. It means that angels who serve God on behalf of His people have direct access to the Father. Scripture never teaches believers to cultivate relationships with angels, speak to angels, or rely on angels. Every example of angelic interaction in Scripture is initiated by God, not by man. Angels serve at His command, not ours.

As for your claim that Catholics assembled the Bible, that is simply not true. The Bible is not a Catholic book. It is the Word of God, written by prophets and apostles long before Rome existed as a church. The Old Testament was preserved by Israel, not by Rome. The New Testament was written by apostles and their close associates, all of whom lived and died before any Roman magisterium existed. The early churches received the apostolic writings directly, copied them, circulated them, and recognized them because they were already authoritative. Rome did not create Scripture. Rome did not inspire Scripture. Rome did not determine Scripture. Rome inherited Scripture from the apostolic churches that existed before it.

The idea that Protestants are not apostolic is also historically inaccurate. Apostolicity is not defined by institutional succession. It is defined by fidelity to the apostles’ doctrine. The believers’ church line that carried Baptist distinctives long before the Reformation preserved Scripture, preached Scripture, copied Scripture, and suffered for Scripture. The Waldenses, the Paulicians, the Petrobrusians, the early Anabaptists, and the first English Baptists all held the apostolic writings as their sole authority. They did not rely on Rome to tell them what Scripture was. They recognized Scripture because the sheep hear the Shepherd’s voice.

Your argument assumes that the authority of Scripture depends on the authority of Rome. Scripture never teaches that. The apostles never teach that. The early churches never believed that. The authority of Scripture comes from God, not from any human institution. Rome did not assemble the Bible. Rome did not authorize the Bible. Rome did not preserve the Bible alone. The Word of God stands on its own authority, and the churches that held it before Rome and outside Rome testify to that fact.

So again, you are answering with tradition rather than Scripture. Angelic devotion is tradition. Roman claims about assembling the Bible are tradition. Apostolic succession as Rome defines it is tradition. None of these things overturn the plain teaching of Scripture. The Bible is the Word of God. Angels serve God, not us. And the authority of Scripture rests in God, not in Rome.

You are all narrative and no sources.

Bible history is Catholic history.

Protestants had nothing to do with the Bible.

Feel free to cite Protestant sources from the 300s.

“Likewise it has been said: Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis one book, Exodus one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one book, Josue Nave one book, Judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four books, Paralipomenon two books, Psalms one book, Solomon three books, Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book, likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus one book. Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book,with Ginoth, that is, with his lamentations, Ezechiel one book,Daniel one book, Osee one book, Micheas one book, Joel one book, Abdias one book, Jonas one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc one book, Sophonias one book, Aggeus one book, Zacharias one book, Malachias one book. Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdras two books, Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books. Likewise the order of the writings of the New and eternal Testament, which only the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book, according to Luke one book, according to John one book. The Epistles of Paul [the apostle] in number fourteen. To the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Ephesians one, to the Thessalonians two, to the Galatians one, to the Philippians one, to the Colossians one, to Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one, to the Hebrews one. Likewise the Apocalypse of John, one book. And the Acts of the Apostles one book. Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven. Of Peter the Apostle two epistles, of James the Apostle one epistle, of John the Apostle one epistle, of another John, the presbyter, two epistles, of Jude the Zealut, the Apostle one epistle.” Pope Damasus (regn. A.D. 366-384), Decree of the Council of Rome, The Canon of Scripture (A.D. 382).

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

You are all narrative and no sources.

Bible history is Catholic history.

Protestants had nothing to do with the Bible.

Feel free to cite Protestant sources from the 300s.

“Likewise it has been said: Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis one book, Exodus one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one book, Josue Nave one book, Judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four books, Paralipomenon two books, Psalms one book, Solomon three books, Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book, likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus one book. Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book,with Ginoth, that is, with his lamentations, Ezechiel one book,Daniel one book, Osee one book, Micheas one book, Joel one book, Abdias one book, Jonas one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc one book, Sophonias one book, Aggeus one book, Zacharias one book, Malachias one book. Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdras two books, Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books. Likewise the order of the writings of the New and eternal Testament, which only the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book, according to Luke one book, according to John one book. The Epistles of Paul [the apostle] in number fourteen. To the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Ephesians one, to the Thessalonians two, to the Galatians one, to the Philippians one, to the Colossians one, to Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one, to the Hebrews one. Likewise the Apocalypse of John, one book. And the Acts of the Apostles one book. Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven. Of Peter the Apostle two epistles, of James the Apostle one epistle, of John the Apostle one epistle, of another John, the presbyter, two epistles, of Jude the Zealut, the Apostle one epistle.” Pope Damasus (regn. A.D. 366-384), Decree of the Council of Rome, The Canon of Scripture (A.D. 382).

Cathode, thank you for the citation. But you are not answering the point. You are defending your system with your system. Quoting a Catholic decree to prove Catholic authority is circular. It assumes the very thing you are trying to demonstrate. That is self‑justification, not argument.

The decree of Damasus in 382 AD did not assemble the Bible. It did not create the canon. It did not make Scripture Scripture. It simply listed books that the churches already recognized. The Old Testament was preserved by Israel long before Rome existed. The New Testament was written by apostles and their close associates long before any Roman magisterium existed. The early churches received those writings directly, copied them, circulated them, preached them, and recognized them because they were already authoritative. Rome inherited Scripture; Rome did not originate it.

Your challenge to “cite Protestant sources from the 300s” is a category mistake. There were no Protestants in the 300s because the Reformation had not yet occurred. But there were apostolic churches outside Rome, and they preserved Scripture without Roman oversight. The Waldenses, Paulicians, Petrobrusians, and other believers’ churches held the apostolic writings as their sole authority long before Rome claimed magisterial control. Apostolicity is fidelity to the apostles’ doctrine, not institutional lineage.

You also did not answer the angelic question. Matthew 18:10 does not teach angelic patronage or devotional bonding. It teaches angelic ministry under God’s command. Scripture never instructs believers to cultivate relationships with angels, speak to angels, or rely on angels. Every example of angelic interaction in Scripture is initiated by God, not by man. Angels serve at His command, not ours.

So again, you have not addressed the biblical argument. You have retreated into institutional claims. Angelic devotion is tradition. Roman canon claims are tradition. Apostolic succession as Rome defines it is tradition. None of these overturn Scripture. The Bible is the Word of God. Angels serve God, not us. And the authority of Scripture rests in God, not in Rome.

 

[Cathode]

Cathode, you are doing what Catholic apologist do when they get cornered by Scripture, you retreat into the supposed safety of magisterial claims, apostolic succession rhetoric, and the “Catholics assembled the Bible” talking points. It is nothing more that catechetical reflex.

When pressed the Catholic retreats into institutional claims.

You shifted from:

• angels to
• “The Bible isn’t a Protestant book” to
• “Protestants aren’t apostolic” to
• “Catholics assembled the Bible” to
• Anything and everything to avoid the collapse of your argument it appears

This is the standard fallback when the biblical argument collapses. It is not a response. It is a deflection.

I cited sources you cite narratives.

Tell me how Protestants preserved the scriptures from the Apostles and assembled the Canon.

You are talking about history that is entirely Catholic and you are in complete denial of reality.

All you have is prejudiced narrative as filler.

The Bible didn’t fall out of the sky in the 1500s.

“[It has been decided] that nothing except the Canonical Scriptures should be read in the church under the name of the Divine Scriptures. But the Canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the Prophets, Isaias, Jeremias, Daniel, Ezechiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees. Moreover, of the New Testament: Four books of the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles one book, thirteen epistles of Paul the Apostle, one of the same to the Hebrews, two of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, the Apocalypse of John.” Council of Carthage III, Canon 47 (A.D. 397).

All Catholic Councils.

Do you see any inspired books listing which books belong in the Bible?

No? Your Bible is Catholic tradition, that’s why.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

This is what the Catholic apologist does when cornered by Scripture, he retreats into institutional claims, and when those claims are challenged, he retreats further into self‑authenticating citations, sources that assume the very authority he is trying to prove.

They quote a Catholic decree to prove Catholic authority. This is the self‑justification reflexive knee-jerk response in its purest form.
That is circular.

It is saying: “Rome is authoritative because Rome said so.” This is not evidence. It is self‑authentication.

Notice he ignored the actual historical point I made.

I said:

• Israel preserved the Old Testament
• Apostles wrote the New Testament
• Early churches circulated the writings
• Rome inherited Scripture, not created it
• Apostolicity is fidelity to doctrine, not institutional lineage

He did not answer any of that. He did not address:

• the Waldenses
• the Paulicians
• the Petrobrusians
• the early Anabaptists
• the pre‑Reformation believers’ churches

He did not address the fact that Scripture existed before Rome. He did not address the fact that apostolic writings were recognized before Rome. He did not address the fact that canon lists existed outside Rome.

The authority the Catholic depends on is “Bible history is Catholic history." That is not an argument. It is a slogan.

This is the collapse.

When the Catholic cannot defend his doctrine from Scripture. When he cannot defend claims from history.

He retreats into:

• slogans
• decrees
• magisterial claims
• circular citations

I said: “This is the standard fallback when the biblical argument collapses.”

And he responds by… falling back into the standard fallback.

He proves the point by trying to refute it.

That is collapse.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

I cited sources you cite narratives.

Tell me how Protestants preserved the scriptures from the Apostles and assembled the Canon.

You are talking about history that is entirely Catholic and you are in complete denial of reality.

All you have is prejudiced narrative as filler.

The Bible didn’t fall out of the sky in the 1500s.

“[It has been decided] that nothing except the Canonical Scriptures should be read in the church under the name of the Divine Scriptures. But the Canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the Prophets, Isaias, Jeremias, Daniel, Ezechiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees. Moreover, of the New Testament: Four books of the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles one book, thirteen epistles of Paul the Apostle, one of the same to the Hebrews, two of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, the Apocalypse of John.” Council of Carthage III, Canon 47 (A.D. 397).

All Catholic Councils.

Do you see any inspired books listing which books belong in the Bible?

No? Your Bible is Catholic tradition, that’s why.

Cathode, you are still not addressing the point. You are defending your system with your system. Quoting Catholic councils to prove Catholic authority over Scripture is circular. It assumes the very thing you are trying to demonstrate. That is self‑justification, not argument.

The Council of Carthage in 397 did not assemble the Bible. It did not create the canon. It did not make Scripture Scripture. It simply listed books that the churches already recognized. The Old Testament was preserved by Israel long before Rome existed. The New Testament was written by apostles and their close associates long before any Roman magisterium existed. The early churches received those writings directly, copied them, circulated them, preached them, and recognized them because they were already authoritative. Rome inherited Scripture; Rome did not originate it.

Your challenge to “cite Protestant sources from the 300s” is a category mistake. There were no Protestants in the 300s because the Reformation had not yet occurred. But there were apostolic churches outside Rome, and they preserved Scripture without Roman oversight. Apostolicity is fidelity to the apostles’ doctrine, not institutional lineage.

You also did not answer the angelic question. Matthew 18:10 does not teach angelic patronage or devotional bonding. It teaches angelic ministry under God’s command. Scripture never instructs believers to cultivate relationships with angels, speak to angels, or rely on angels. Every example of angelic interaction in Scripture is initiated by God, not by man. Angels serve at His command, not ours.

So again, you have not addressed the biblical argument. You have retreated into institutional claims. Angelic devotion is tradition. Roman canon claims are tradition. Apostolic succession as Rome defines it is tradition. None of these overturn Scripture. The Bible is the Word of God. Angels serve God, not us. And the authority of Scripture rests in God, not in Rome.

 

[Cathode]

Cathode, thank you for the citation. But you are not answering the point. You are defending your system with your system. Quoting a Catholic decree to prove Catholic authority is circular. It assumes the very thing you are trying to demonstrate. That is self‑justification, not argument.

The decree of Damasus in 382 AD did not assemble the Bible. It did not create the canon. It did not make Scripture Scripture. It simply listed books that the churches already recognized. The Old Testament was preserved by Israel long before Rome existed. The New Testament was written by apostles and their close associates long before any Roman magisterium existed. The early churches received those writings directly, copied them, circulated them, preached them, and recognized them because they were already authoritative. Rome inherited Scripture; Rome did not originate it.

Your challenge to “cite Protestant sources from the 300s” is a category mistake. There were no Protestants in the 300s because the Reformation had not yet occurred. But there were apostolic churches outside Rome, and they preserved Scripture without Roman oversight. The Waldenses, Paulicians, Petrobrusians, and other believers’ churches held the apostolic writings as their sole authority long before Rome claimed magisterial control. Apostolicity is fidelity to the apostles’ doctrine, not institutional lineage.

You also did not answer the angelic question. Matthew 18:10 does not teach angelic patronage or devotional bonding. It teaches angelic ministry under God’s command. Scripture never instructs believers to cultivate relationships with angels, speak to angels, or rely on angels. Every example of angelic interaction in Scripture is initiated by God, not by man. Angels serve at His command, not ours.

So again, you have not addressed the biblical argument. You have retreated into institutional claims. Angelic devotion is tradition. Roman canon claims are tradition. Apostolic succession as Rome defines it is tradition. None of these overturn Scripture. The Bible is the Word of God. Angels serve God, not us. And the authority of Scripture rests in God, not in Rome.

All the Churches held the Council to determine the authenticity of the books. 54 books were said to be gospels and hundreds of others claiming to be from some apostolic source.

Do you know what criteria was used to establish authenticity?

Catholic Tradition.

The Bible was Catholic Liturgy before it was the Bible, it had to be continuously read in the churches from the Apostolic times.

The Catholic Councils held these scriptures, because they were the Church of the Apostles.

It was the Catholic Church’s inspired idea to assemble the Bible from its own liturgy.

No Protestant aided in its preservation or construction.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

All the Churches held the Council to determine the authenticity of the books. 54 books were said to be gospels and hundreds of others claiming to be from some apostolic source.

Do you know what criteria was used to establish authenticity?

Catholic Tradition.

The Bible was Catholic Liturgy before it was the Bible, it had to be continuously read in the churches from the Apostolic times.

The Catholic Councils held these scriptures, because they were the Church of the Apostles.

It was the Catholic Church’s inspired idea to assemble the Bible from its own liturgy.

No Protestant aided in its preservation or construction.

Cathode, at this point we are simply repeating the same pattern. You are relying on Catholicism to prove Catholicism. Quoting Catholic councils to establish Catholic authority over Scripture is circular. It assumes the very conclusion you are trying to demonstrate. That is not argument; it is self‑authentication.

The councils you cite did not create Scripture, did not inspire Scripture, and did not make Scripture Scripture. They listed books the churches already recognized. The writings existed first. The churches read them because they were Scripture. Liturgy followed Scripture; Scripture did not follow liturgy. Rome inherited the canon; Rome did not originate it.

Appealing to Catholic tradition to prove Catholic tradition is not a response to the historical or biblical points I raised. It is simply the system defending itself with itself. That is why the discussion keeps circling back to the same institutional claims.

So I will close with this: the authority of Scripture rests in God, not in Rome. The canon was recognized because it was inspired, not because later councils acknowledged it. And quoting Catholic sources to prove Catholic authority is precisely the circularity I have been pointing out.

We have reached the end of what can be clarified here. This conversation is over.

 

[Cathode]

Cathode, you are still not addressing the point. You are defending your system with your system. Quoting Catholic councils to prove Catholic authority over Scripture is circular. It assumes the very thing you are trying to demonstrate. That is self‑justification, not argument.

The Council of Carthage in 397 did not assemble the Bible. It did not create the canon. It did not make Scripture Scripture. It simply listed books that the churches already recognized. The Old Testament was preserved by Israel long before Rome existed. The New Testament was written by apostles and their close associates long before any Roman magisterium existed. The early churches received those writings directly, copied them, circulated them, preached them, and recognized them because they were already authoritative. Rome inherited Scripture; Rome did not originate it.

Your challenge to “cite Protestant sources from the 300s” is a category mistake. There were no Protestants in the 300s because the Reformation had not yet occurred. But there were apostolic churches outside Rome, and they preserved Scripture without Roman oversight. Apostolicity is fidelity to the apostles’ doctrine, not institutional lineage.

You also did not answer the angelic question. Matthew 18:10 does not teach angelic patronage or devotional bonding. It teaches angelic ministry under God’s command. Scripture never instructs believers to cultivate relationships with angels, speak to angels, or rely on angels. Every example of angelic interaction in Scripture is initiated by God, not by man. Angels serve at His command, not ours.

So again, you have not addressed the biblical argument. You have retreated into institutional claims. Angelic devotion is tradition. Roman canon claims are tradition. Apostolic succession as Rome defines it is tradition. None of these overturn Scripture. The Bible is the Word of God. And the authority of Scripture rests in God, not in Rome.

Angelic help, guidance and protection is lived spiritual experience in the old and new covenants.

Angels serve God, not us.

False, scripture says God sent them to serve us as well.

“Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?”

They are our servants, this is the relationship.
What do servants do but take our requests.

So your statement is unbiblical.

 

[Cathode]

Cathode, you are still not addressing the point. You are defending your system with your system. Quoting Catholic councils to prove Catholic authority over Scripture is circular. It assumes the very thing you are trying to demonstrate. That is self‑justification, not argument.

The Council of Carthage in 397 did not assemble the Bible. It did not create the canon. It did not make Scripture Scripture. It simply listed books that the churches already recognized. The Old Testament was preserved by Israel long before Rome existed. The New Testament was written by apostles and their close associates long before any Roman magisterium existed. The early churches received those writings directly, copied them, circulated them, preached them, and recognized them because they were already authoritative. Rome inherited Scripture; Rome did not originate it.

Your challenge to “cite Protestant sources from the 300s” is a category mistake. There were no Protestants in the 300s because the Reformation had not yet occurred. But there were apostolic churches outside Rome, and they preserved Scripture without Roman oversight. Apostolicity is fidelity to the apostles’ doctrine, not institutional lineage.

You also did not answer the angelic question. Matthew 18:10 does not teach angelic patronage or devotional bonding. It teaches angelic ministry under God’s command. Scripture never instructs believers to cultivate relationships with angels, speak to angels, or rely on angels. Every example of angelic interaction in Scripture is initiated by God, not by man. Angels serve at His command, not ours.

So again, you have not addressed the biblical argument. You have retreated into institutional claims. Angelic devotion is tradition. Roman canon claims are tradition. Apostolic succession as Rome defines it is tradition. None of these overturn Scripture. The Bible is the Word of God. Angels serve God, not us. And the authority of Scripture rests in God, not in Rome.

How do you know the Bible is inspired?

Self authentication would be an inspired author listing which books belong in the Bible.

Do you see any such inspired book listing which books belong in the Bible?

The Bible isn’t self authenticating, it’s Catholic Tradition.

Too scared to face the reality.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

How do you know the Bible is inspired?

Self authentication would be an inspired author listing which books belong in the Bible.

Do you see any such inspired book listing which books belong in the Bible?

The Bible isn’t self authenticating, it’s Catholic Tradition.

Too scared to face the reality.

Cathode, I was waiting for the personal attack, and now that it has arrived, I’m going to close my part of this discussion with a simple observation. I have engaged in this conversation for a few specific purposes: to show how shallow the Catholic apologetic method becomes when pressed by Scripture, to show the lengths of falsity it must claim to sustain itself, and to show the personal attacks it eventually resorts to when the argument collapses. All of these are indicators of a false, unscriptural, and self‑authenticating system.

The constant retreat into magisterial claims, the circular appeal to Catholic tradition to prove Catholic tradition, and the refusal to engage the biblical argument all reveal the same thing, a system defending itself with itself. When an argument must rely on its own authority to justify its own authority, it has already lost its biblical foundation. That is why this discussion has drifted into councils, decrees, and institutional claims rather than Scripture. It is not a personal issue; it is the nature of the system you are defending.

I have succeeded in demonstrating exactly that. You have confirmed it.

For my part, that is enough to make the point. I’ll leave it there.

 

[Ben1445]

People did talk to angels in scripture, angels were part of the lived experience in the old covenant and new covenant churches.

Tell me where you find men, made lower than angels summoning them to watch the Jericho road to make sure that the story of the Good Samaritan didn’t happen too often?
Anything remotely close?

 

[Cathode]

Cathode, I was waiting for the personal attack, and now that it has arrived, I’m going to close my part of this discussion with a simple observation. I have engaged in this conversation for a few specific purposes: to show how shallow the Catholic apologetic method becomes when pressed by Scripture, to show the lengths of falsity it must claim to sustain itself, and to show the personal attacks it eventually resorts to when the argument collapses. All of these are indicators of a false, unscriptural, and self‑authenticating system.

The constant retreat into magisterial claims, the circular appeal to Catholic tradition to prove Catholic tradition, and the refusal to engage the biblical argument all reveal the same thing, a system defending itself with itself. When an argument must rely on its own authority to justify its own authority, it has already lost its biblical foundation. That is why this discussion has drifted into councils, decrees, and institutional claims rather than Scripture. It is not a personal issue; it is the nature of the system you are defending.

I have succeeded in demonstrating exactly that. You have confirmed it.

For my part, that is enough to make the point. I’ll leave it there.

What I notice is your flurry of verbiage and narratives with bold claims and no sources.

If the Bible is self authenticating, why is there no inspired author in an inspired book listing what books belong in the Bible ?

Didn’t want to hang around to face that question.

 

[Ben1445]

If the Bible is self authenticating

Which is why there is the Bible and there is the apocrypha instead of just the Bible.

 

[Walter]

Trying to stay with the OP, even though this has been covered it bears repeating:
In Psalm 103 we pray, “Bless the Lord, O you his angels, you mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word! Bless the Lord, all his hosts, his ministers that do his will!” (Ps. 103:20–21). And in the opening verses of Psalms 148 we pray, “Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord from the heavens, praise him in the heights! Praise him, all his angels, praise him, all his host!”
Not only do those in heaven pray with us, they also pray for us. In the book of Revelation, John sees that “the twenty-four elders [the leaders of the people of God in heaven] fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints” (Rev. 5:8). Thus the saints in heaven offer to God the prayers of the saints on earth.
Angels do the same thing: “An angel came and stood at the altar [in heaven] with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God” (Rev. 8:3–4).
Jesus himself warned us not to offend small children, because their guardian angels have guaranteed intercessory access to the Father: “See that you do not despise one of these little ones; for I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 18:10).
Because he is the only God-man and the mediator of the New Covenant, Jesus is the only mediator between man and God (1 Tim. 2:5), but this in no way means we cannot or should not ask our fellow Christians to pray with us and for us (1 Tim. 2:1–4). In particular, we should ask the intercession of those Christians in heaven, who have already had their sanctification completed, because “the prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects” (Jas. 5:16).

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Trying to stay with the OP, even though this has been covered it bears repeating:
In Psalm 103 we pray, “Bless the Lord, O you his angels, you mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word! Bless the Lord, all his hosts, his ministers that do his will!” (Ps. 103:20–21). And in the opening verses of Psalms 148 we pray, “Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord from the heavens, praise him in the heights! Praise him, all his angels, praise him, all his host!”
Not only do those in heaven pray with us, they also pray for us. In the book of Revelation, John sees that “the twenty-four elders [the leaders of the people of God in heaven] fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints” (Rev. 5:8). Thus the saints in heaven offer to God the prayers of the saints on earth.
Angels do the same thing: “An angel came and stood at the altar [in heaven] with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God” (Rev. 8:3–4).
Jesus himself warned us not to offend small children, because their guardian angels have guaranteed intercessory access to the Father: “See that you do not despise one of these little ones; for I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 18:10).
Because he is the only God-man and the mediator of the New Covenant, Jesus is the only mediator between man and God (1 Tim. 2:5), but this in no way means we cannot or should not ask our fellow Christians to pray with us and for us (1 Tim. 2:1–4). In particular, we should ask the intercession of those Christians in heaven, who have already had their sanctification completed, because “the prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects” (Jas. 5:16).

Walter, you have shifted the topic to Catholic intercession theology, using angels and saints as mediators, which is not what Psalm 103, Psalm 148, Revelation 5, or Revelation 8 are teaching.

The passages you quoted are about the worship and obedience of angels in heaven, but they do not teach angelic intercession or mediation. Psalm 103 and Psalm 148 show angels blessing and praising the Lord, doing His word and His will. They do not say that angels pray for us or carry our prayers to God. They describe heavenly worship, not heavenly mediation.

The scenes in Revelation are symbolic visions of worship before the throne. In Revelation 5:8 the elders hold bowls that are called the prayers of the saints, but the text does not say that the elders offer prayers on our behalf or add their own intercession to ours. It simply shows that the prayers of God’s people are precious in His sight. In Revelation 8:3-4 an angel is given incense to mingle with the prayers of the saints, but again this is part of the symbolic worship imagery of the vision. It is not a doctrine of angelic intercession, nor an instruction for believers to seek the prayers of angels.

Matthew 18:10 teaches that the angels of little ones always behold the face of the Father. This shows God’s care for the vulnerable and the attentiveness of His angels, but it does not teach that angels pray for children or act as mediators. The verse speaks of their access to God, not of intercessory activity.

Scripture teaches that Jesus Christ is the one mediator between God and man. “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” (1 Timothy 2:5). He is the only God‑man and the mediator through whom God receives the prayers of His people. This does not prevent Christians from praying for one another, but it does mean that mediation belongs to Christ alone. The passages you cited describe worship in heaven, not intercession from heaven, and they do not support the idea that believers should seek the prayers of angels or departed saints.

 

[Walter]

Walter, you have shifted the topic to Catholic intercession theology, using angels and saints as mediators, which is not what Psalm 103, Psalm 148, Revelation 5, or Revelation 8 are teaching.

The passages you quoted are about the worship and obedience of angels in heaven, but they do not teach angelic intercession or mediation. Psalm 103 and Psalm 148 show angels blessing and praising the Lord, doing His word and His will. They do not say that angels pray for us or carry our prayers to God. They describe heavenly worship, not heavenly mediation.

The scenes in Revelation are symbolic visions of worship before the throne. In Revelation 5:8 the elders hold bowls that are called the prayers of the saints, but the text does not say that the elders offer prayers on our behalf or add their own intercession to ours. It simply shows that the prayers of God’s people are precious in His sight. In Revelation 8:3-4 an angel is given incense to mingle with the prayers of the saints, but again this is part of the symbolic worship imagery of the vision. It is not a doctrine of angelic intercession, nor an instruction for believers to seek the prayers of angels.

Matthew 18:10 teaches that the angels of little ones always behold the face of the Father. This shows God’s care for the vulnerable and the attentiveness of His angels, but it does not teach that angels pray for children or act as mediators. The verse speaks of their access to God, not of intercessory activity.

Scripture teaches that Jesus Christ is the one mediator between God and man. “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” (1 Timothy 2:5). He is the only God‑man and the mediator through whom God receives the prayers of His people. This does not prevent Christians from praying for one another, but it does mean that mediation belongs to Christ alone. The passages you cited describe worship in heaven, not intercession from heaven, and they do not support the idea that believers should seek the prayers of angels or departed saints.

David CLEARLY addressed (invoked) the Angels in Psalm 103, whether you want to try to spin it or not.

Yes, Christians can and should pray for one another. We just don't believe in 'Soul Sleep' which is what the SDA believes and was suggested by someone in a previous post. The departed saints in heaven are very much alive and tell me, why would the elders in Revelation 5:8 need to intercede for anyone in Heaven? It does indeed say they are offering prayers of intercession, but who in Heaven would need that? The Angels don't need intercession and the 'alive in Christ' departed saints don't need intercessory prayers, so . . . .?

And, The Catholic Church has always believed that Jesus Christ is the one mediator between God and man. It is the death and resurrection of Jesus alone by which people are saved.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

David CLEARLY addressed (invoked) the Angels in Psalm 103, whether you want to try to spin it or not.

Yes, Christians can and should pray for one another. We just don't believe in 'Soul Sleep' which is what the SDA believes and was suggested by someone in a previous post. The departed saints in heaven are very much alive and tell me, why would the elders in Revelation 5:8 need to intercede for anyone in Heaven? It does indeed say they are offering prayers of intercession, but who in Heaven would need that? The Angels don't need intercession and the 'alive in Christ' departed saints don't need intercessory prayers, so . . . .?

And, The Catholic Church has always believed that Jesus Christ is the one mediator between God and man. It is the death and resurrection of Jesus alone by which people are saved.

Walter, David is not invoking angels in Psalm 103. He is calling on all creation to bless the Lord. “Bless the Lord, ye his angels” is not a prayer to angels, nor an appeal for their intercession. It is a summons to worship, just as “Bless the Lord, all his works” is. Addressing angels in a psalm of praise is not the same thing as praying to them or asking them to carry prayers to God.

Revelation 5:8 does not say the elders are offering intercession. It says they have bowls which are the prayers of the saints. The text does not say they add their own prayers, present them on behalf of others, or act as mediators. The imagery shows that the prayers of God’s people are precious in His sight, not that departed saints receive or transmit prayers.

Your question about “who in heaven would need intercession” assumes something the passage does not teach. The elders are not interceding for anyone; they are part of a symbolic worship scene. Revelation 8:3–4 is the same: an angel is given incense to mingle with the prayers of the saints, but the text does not say the angel prays for us or carries our prayers to God. It is worship imagery, not a doctrine of heavenly mediators.

Matthew 18:10 shows the attentiveness of angels, not their intercession. They behold the face of the Father; the verse does not say they pray for children or act as mediators.

Scripture teaches that Jesus Christ is the one mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5). That is the point. Christians may pray for one another, but mediation belongs to Christ alone. Nothing in Psalm 103, Revelation 5, Revelation 8, or Matthew 18 teaches that believers should seek the prayers of angels or departed saints.

 

[Walter]

The saints are part of the Body of Christ, and Scripture shows us that members of the Body pray for one another.

In James 5:16, we’re told, “The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.” As Cathode pointed out, 'who could be more righteous than those who are already in Heaven, perfected in Christ?' Asking a saint to pray for you is like asking a holy friend on earth to intercede for you—except they are before the throne of God, and their prayers are pure and constant.

As I said, the elders in Heaven are seen holding “golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.” This shows that the saints in Heaven are actively presenting our prayers to God. They are not passive observers—they are intercessors.

You point to 1 Timothy 2:5, which says, “There is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus.” And that’s absolutely true. Catholics believe Jesus is the only mediator of salvation. But that doesn’t mean others can’t pray for us. If it did, we couldn’t ask anyone—on earth or in Heaven—to intercede on our behalf.

In Hebrews 12:1, we’re told we are “surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses.” The saints are not distant or disconnected—they are part of our spiritual family, cheering us on and praying for us as we run the race toward Heaven.

So when Catholics “pray to saints,” we’re really saying, “St. Joseph, pray for me. St. Therese, intercede for my family. It’s not worship—it’s spiritual solidarity with our brothers and sisters in Christ who have already reached the goal.

 

[David Lamb]

David CLEARLY addressed (invoked) the Angels in Psalm 103, whether you want to try to spin it or not.

Yes, Christians can and should pray for one another. We just don't believe in 'Soul Sleep' which is what the SDA believes and was suggested by someone in a previous post. The departed saints in heaven are very much alive and tell me, why would the elders in Revelation 5:8 need to intercede for anyone in Heaven? It does indeed say they are offering prayers of intercession, but who in Heaven would need that? The Angels don't need intercession and the 'alive in Christ' departed saints don't need intercessory prayers, so . . . .?

And, The Catholic Church has always believed that Jesus Christ is the one mediator between God and man. It is the death and resurrection of Jesus alone by which people are saved.

I think we need to be careful here, because elsewhere in the psalms we read:

(Psa 148:7-10 NKJV) Praise the LORD from the earth, You great sea creatures and all the depths; Fire and hail, snow and clouds; Stormy wind, fulfilling His word; Mountains and all hills; Fruitful trees and all cedars; Beasts and all cattle; Creeping things and flying fowl;

Was the psalmist actually addressing or invoking sea creatures, depths, fire, hail, snow, clouds, wind, mountains, hills, trees, beasts, cattle, creeping things and fowl? Or was he rather acknowledging that all things were created for God's glory and praise?

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

The saints are part of the Body of Christ, and Scripture shows us that members of the Body pray for one another.

In James 5:16, we’re told, “The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.” As Cathode pointed out, 'who could be more righteous than those who are already in Heaven, perfected in Christ?' Asking a saint to pray for you is like asking a holy friend on earth to intercede for you—except they are before the throne of God, and their prayers are pure and constant.

As I said, the elders in Heaven are seen holding “golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.” This shows that the saints in Heaven are actively presenting our prayers to God. They are not passive observers—they are intercessors.

You point to 1 Timothy 2:5, which says, “There is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus.” And that’s absolutely true. Catholics believe Jesus is the only mediator of salvation. But that doesn’t mean others can’t pray for us. If it did, we couldn’t ask anyone—on earth or in Heaven—to intercede on our behalf.

In Hebrews 12:1, we’re told we are “surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses.” The saints are not distant or disconnected—they are part of our spiritual family, cheering us on and praying for us as we run the race toward Heaven.

So when Catholics “pray to saints,” we’re really saying, “St. Joseph, pray for me. St. Therese, intercede for my family. It’s not worship—it’s spiritual solidarity with our brothers and sisters in Christ who have already reached the goal.

Walter, the issue isn’t whether saints are part of the Body of Christ or whether believers pray for one another. The question is whether Scripture ever teaches that departed believers in heaven receive our prayers, hear our requests, or intercede for us. They do not. None of the passages you cited actually say that.

Psalm 103 and Psalm 148 are not examples of invoking angels any more than Psalm 148:7-10 is an invocation of sea creatures, mountains, trees, cattle, or birds, as David Lamb excellently pointed out. The psalmist is calling all creation to acknowledge God’s glory. It is poetic praise, not instruction for prayer.

Revelation 5:8 does not show saints in heaven receiving prayers from earth or adding their intercession to ours. The text says the bowls are the prayers of the saints, not that the elders are praying for us. It is symbolic worship imagery, just like the harps, the throne, and the living creatures. Revelation 8:3–4 is the same, an angel is given incense to mingle with the prayers of the saints, but the passage never says the angel is praying for us or presenting our requests. It is part of the vision’s liturgical symbolism, not a doctrine of heavenly intercession.

Hebrews 12:1 says we are surrounded by a “cloud of witnesses,” meaning those whose lives testify to faith. The chapter defines “witnesses” by recounting their deeds, not their ongoing activity. The text does not say they hear us, see us, or pray for us. Their witness is their example, not their intercession.

The point of 1 Timothy 2:5 is not merely that Jesus is the mediator of salvation, but that He is the one mediator between God and man. Asking living believers to pray for us does not violate that, because they are not mediators between us and God, they simply join us in prayer. But praying to departed saints assumes they have access to our petitions, awareness of our circumstances, and a mediatorial role Scripture never assigns to them.

Nothing in the passages you cited teaches that departed believers receive prayers or intercede for those on earth. The worship scenes in Revelation show the value of the prayers of God’s people, not the practice of directing prayers to saints or angels.