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.
>>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?<<
Of course not. He instructed them to go into all the nations and make disciples; and they used his teachings to do so. When the Holy Spirit came upon them at Pentecost, it guided them in truth.
>>Which would beg the question, at what point did the Holy Spirit leave and Scripture took His place?<<
Never. The two go together. The unsaved can read all the Scripture he wants, but it won’t mean anything without the Holy Spirit - to interpret, convict, and guide.
I never said that “only Scripture” is beneficial. I said it is the benchmark to which teachings are to be compared. If the teaching doesn’t align with Scripture, it’s heretical and false.
>>but that which is passed on orally from generation to generation.<<
As long as what’s being passed on can be approved by Scripture, then fine. If it can’t, then it has no place being taught.
>>”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.<<
And His law was then written down. First on the heart, then as the Law. If what you claim is true, Christ himself, as well as the authors of the Epistles would have never needed to reference OT law.
>>Every single word of Scripture is Truth. But nowhere does it claim to be the only source.<<
Then why do you need another source? If every word of Scripture is true, why do you need to go elsewhere?
Either:
1. You don’t trust Scripture
2. You don’t trust the Holy Spirit to illuminate Scripture for you
3. You prefer to trust fallible, sinful men instead.
>>But if it were the only source, the nascent Church would have died in the cradle for lack of a source of Truth.<<
Again, you deny the power of the Holy Spirit (which is infallible), and place your trust on men (who is very much fallible).
>>And again, Jesus never commanded the Apostles to write anything down.<<
How else are you to teach something to someone, and have it stand the test of time, unless you write it down? Ever play the “telephone” game as a kid, where you start at one end of the line with a phrase, and after it’s whispered one to the other to the other, down a line of 20 kids; by the time it gets to the end it’s nothing like the original. Writing down the message is a pretty important way to ensure it will stand the test of time.
Again, men are sinful, God is not - his Spirit is not. I’ll trust Him over men any day of the week.
>>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?<<
Gifts given to the 1st Century church were to establish the authenticty of what they were preaching. They were to lay the foundation with Christ as the cornerstone. That included documenting and writing letters to other churches.
>>You’ve chosen to define “vain” as an unproductive effort, not “self aggrandizement”.<<
I haven’t. Worshipping Mary is both unproductive and vain. Not to mention a violation of the 1st and 2nd commandments (2nd for the front lawn ‘Mary on the Half-Shell’ crowd.)
>>Christ advocated never giving up in prayer, but your stance advocates that repetition is not only useless, but evil.<<
Not in the least. Abraham repeated his prayer to God to spare Sodom & Gomorrah and it worked. We are certainly to be fervent and persistent in our prayer life. But hailing Mary does neither of those, as she’s not our intercessor to God the Father - Christ, and Christ alone, is.
>>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?<<
Mary is physically dead. She cannot hear you any more than my grandfather can hear me. Spiritually-speaking, I have no idea, as Scripture never mentions her anywhere else outside of the Gospel. If prayers to her, begging for her intercession were important, why wouldn’t anyone else mention it in scripture?
>>And I will then ask you to explain how Peter raised Tabitha from the dead at the sound of his voice.<<
See the above note on the special gifts bestowed to the 1st Church to establish it’s credibility.
>>Scripture proves indisputably that the dead can hear our prayers. The book of Revelation explicitly demonstrates that the saints intercede for us.<<
No, they don’t. Their offering of the bowls of ‘the prayers of the saints’ can only be loosely interpreted to mean what you wish it to mean. Revelation is largely symbolic, with literalism mixed in, and interpreting it is a careful process; whereas Romans and Hebrews are quite clear and literal on Christ’s role as our only intercessor and Great (final) High Priest. You can take the challening over the obvious if you wish, but I won’t.
Why is there a need for the saints to intercede for us? Is Christ not sufficient? Why is anything or anyone else necessary, unless Christ’s work on the cross was not complete?
>> 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!??)<<
She’s no more full of grace or favored than anyone else in Scripture who was chosen by God for a specific purpose. Joseph, David, Abraham, etc. In fact, any saved Christian, saved by grace and indwelled with the holy spirit, is exactly as “full of Grace” as Mary was. God shows no partiality, but uses certain people for certain reasons to carry out His perfect will.
Would you hail Ruth? Esther? Hannah? in the same way?
So, in closing, I’ll reiterate my questions to you:
1. Why do you, personally, need anything more than Scripture?
2. Why do you, personally, need any other intercession than Christ’s?
3. Why do you, personally, need the interpretations and traditions of men over trusting the Holy Spirit to illumine scriptural truths for you?
Why are those things not sufficient for you? Why do you need Christ + ___, or the Scriptures + _____, or the Holy Spirit + ______.?
Sola is a beautiful and uncluttered word!