>>God’s Word doesn’t instruct that it’s sufficient.<<
On the contrary, it does. Why would God leave us His word to guide adnd direct if it werent’ sufficient?
Ps 119:160 - “The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever.”
Moses instructed not to change the Word in the OT, the angel warned John not to change it in the NT. Why would such warnings exist if scripture wasn’t sufficient? Why would such care be necessary?
>>He would have ordered them to sit down and start writing the Gospels, and then hand out texts.<<
All in His time, according to His perfect plan. Read John 16. The Holy Spirit would come to them at the appointed time, and at the appointed time would remind them of what He had spoken to them. The oral tradition came directly from first-hand accounts. Paul’s writings and teachings were written as letters and sent to individual churches to be read and passed along to others. Paul based his understandings through the Spirit on what was already written. The Bereans didn’t accept his teachings until they compared them to scripture. Scripture is the benchmark - not fallible, sinful men in funny looking hats.
>>Vain = “Characteristic of false pride; having an exaggerated sense of self-importance”<<
And “Hail Mary” is exactly that.
We repeat the choruses in many hymns, that does not make them vain. David’s psalms used repetitive text to glorify God, that is not vain. The angels worship the Lord using repetitive language, that is not vain.
Repetitive hailing and giving glory & grace to a dead female sinner; and expecting her to pray/petition/intercede for you IS vain. And it will gain nothing. We have only one who intercedes to God the Father (the ONLY “Holy Father”, by the way), and that’s God the Son - Jesus Christ.
>>Jesus’ specifically condemned VAIN repetition, not “repetition” itself. Since you place the utmost importance in every word of Scripture, I find it puzzling that you ignore this adjective for the sake of condeming any kind of repetition whatsoever.<<
I most certainly did not ignore it. I suggest you go back and re-read my earlier post, I included the word ‘vain’.
Secondly, I was not equating ‘vain repititions’ to any prayer offered in Scripture. I equated vain repititions to the ‘Hail Mary’ chants and the Emergent Church’s ‘Sinner’s Prayer’ - neither of which we are exhorted to do according to Scripture.
If Scripture is all there is, why didn't He just leave it behind when He ascended to heaven? The implication from your POV is that Jesus purposely left the Apostolic Church adrift without the lifeboat of the New Testament. Do you really believe that?
The obvious retort will be, "well, that's why the Holy Spirit came". Which would beg the question, at what point did the Holy Spirit leave and Scripture took His place? If you want to state that "only Scripture" is beneficial, then there is no other conclusion but that the Holy Spirit is incapable of enlightening man by His own power, which, I think you would agree, is heretical.
Ps 119:160 - “The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever.”
Amen, my friend! But His "word" is not only that which is written, but that which is passed on orally from generation to generation. "Words" are spoken much more frequently than they are written, so I don't see any explicit evidence that "word" refers only to its written form. God's act - Creation - was the Word spoken ("And God said...and God said...And God said..."), not written.
Moses instructed not to change the Word in the OT, the angel warned John not to change it in the NT. Why would such warnings exist if scripture wasn’t sufficient? Why would such care be necessary?
Yes! Every single word of Scripture is Truth. But nowhere does it claim to be the only source. If it were, then Sacred Scripture could not be inspired by the Holy Spirit, since the New Testament authors were not working off Scripture, but employing the oral tradition which WAS the Gospel. If Scripture is the only source of Truth, then the New Testament itself is suspect by virtue of its origins. That said, because it is Truth, any alteration would be a grievous sin. But if it were the only source, the nascent Church would have died in the cradle for lack of a source of Truth.
All in His time, according to His perfect plan. Read John 16. The Holy Spirit would come to them at the appointed time, and at the appointed time would remind them of what He had spoken to them.
Yes. The Holy Spirit came at Pentecost. When does Scripture say that the Holy Spirit left? And again, Jesus never commanded the Apostles to write anything down. If it was the sole matter of importance, as you claim, how could the Lord neglect to instruct them of this? That's simply not a credible stance. Scripture doesn't even indicate that the Holy Spirit told anyone to write the Gospels. The only instance of anyone being told to write anything is found in the Revelation to John, which was written much later than the Epistles.
The oral tradition came directly from first-hand accounts. Paul’s writings and teachings were written as letters and sent to individual churches to be read and passed along to others.
Sorry to disagree, but the Gospel of Luke employed the sources of Paul and Mark - both of whom qualify as second-hand testimonies. Luke was totally removed from the original Twelve. The only firsthand witness he had access to, it appears, was Mary.
Paul based his understandings through the Spirit on what was already written. The Bereans didn’t accept his teachings until they compared them to scripture. Scripture is the benchmark - not fallible, sinful men in funny looking hats.
If you think the Church doesn't use Scripture as a benchmark for its teachings, it only demonstrates that you haven't actually read any of the encyclicals, proclamations, and letters of the Vatican, nor the Catechism itself. The difference is, Scripture isn't the only source, but Tradition as well, which the Church teaches is protected by the Holy Spirit which remains with her. Again, if the Holy Spirit went away, I'd love for you to point it out. And if the Holy Spirit's only role were to inspire Scripture, then His work is done? You can't have it both ways. As for "funny men in hats", Jesus' delegation of authority to Peter and the Apostles directly contradicts the notion that fallible, sinful men - such as the Apostles - are superceded by Scripture which did not exist during their time on Earth. Peter was given the keys to the kingdom - why didn't Jesus just whip up a New Testament and distribute an endless supply of those like loaves and fishes? Your stance insinuates that Jesus cared more about handing out fish instead of providing the almighty single source of Truth.
Repetitive hailing and giving glory & grace to a dead female sinner; and expecting her to pray/petition/intercede for you IS vain.
You've chosen to define "vain" as an unproductive effort, not "self aggrandizement". Can I ask why? This approach contradicts Christ's own testimony about the woman who repeatedly petitioned the judge who finally granted her request. Christ advocated never giving up in prayer, but your stance advocates that repetition is not only useless, but evil. Who should I believe? Your view seems to stem from prejudice against the Church. Mine is supported by Jesus' similar discussions about vanity in prayer.
Additionally, prayer is not "giving grace". And if Mary is "dead", then I take it you don't believe in eternal life? God described Himself as "the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob", all of whom were dead when these words were spoken. Why would He refer anyone to a bunch of dead guys?
You're probably going to respond that dead people can't hear our prayers. And I will then ask you to explain how Peter raised Tabitha from the dead at the sound of his voice. Scripture proves indisputably that the dead can hear our prayers. The book of Revelation explicitly demonstrates that the saints intercede for us.
>>Vain = “Characteristic of false pride; having an exaggerated sense of self-importance”<<
And “Hail Mary” is exactly that.
It is? Just because? I wish you'd pick a defintion of "vain" and stick with it.
What about, "all generations shall call me blessed"? That's pretty vain, wouldn't you say? I would think that would immediately disqualify her for the motherhood of the Son of God, don'tcha think? Especially for someone "full of grace" (what, an archangel heaping praise on a human being!??)
I most certainly did not ignore it. I suggest you go back and re-read my earlier post, I included the word ‘vain’.
You included the word, but subtracted its meaning from your exegesis, therefore, it appears that you ignored that the word was even there.
Secondly, I was not equating ‘vain repititions’ to any prayer offered in Scripture. I equated vain repititions to the ‘Hail Mary’ chants and the Emergent Church’s ‘Sinner’s Prayer’ - neither of which we are exhorted to do according to Scripture.
Once again, I challenge you to demonstrate where Scripture presents itself as the sole deposit of faith. You continue to appeal to Protestant tradition instead of Scripture. If Sola Scriptura is not found in Scripture, then it's not scriptural, and by virtue of your own faith system, must be rejected. Will you meet this challenge or continue to throw up strawmen?
Jesus didn't command anyone to "write down what I do" while He was on earth. Then again, He might have, but since it's nowhere in Scripture, according to your POV, it's impossible to believe that He ever did.