>>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!
I don't disagree.
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.
The Holy Spirit only enlightens the "saved"? How is someone guided off the path of destruction if the Holy Spirit only ministers to the "saved"?
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.
Your previous posts indicated pretty clearly, "only Scripture". Are you flip-flopping now? I still don't see any scriptural evidence that it's the only benchmark. Especially since the very discernment of which books would comprise the canon was gauged by whether or not the scripture squared with oral Tradition. If anything, Oral Tradition is the elder of the written Word. Yet, they are BOTH, equally reliable deposits of faith.
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.
Again, this flies in the face of the very fact that the various inspired/uninspired Gospels, letters, and apocalyptic writings were differentiated by virtue of whether or not they squared with the accepted oral traditions of the Church. They couldn't be squared against a New Testament canon that didn't exist, could they?
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.
The written law did not eliminate the spoken one. The two co-exist - they are not exclusive to each other.
Christ didn't need to reference the old law. He did so because the people were well versed in what it said, and employed it to draw the connection that it was being fulfilled in their presence. But Christ didn't walk around citing the old law. He even gave two NEW commands which were not written down until the Gospels came to be. Paul neither gave exclusivity to the old law, but also cited the importance of carrying on tradition.
Then why do you need another source? If every word of Scripture is true, why do you need to go elsewhere?
It's not a matter of need. God didn't need the Apostles to go out and make disciples of all nations, either, since He can simply will it of all people. But it was His will that they do so. Will you argue with that, too? God empowered the Apostles to make disciples by the spoken word, not the written. The written New Testament is no less efficacious, but there is no proof anywhere whatsoever that it supplanted oral tradition.
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.
1. I totally trust Scripture. I also totally trust oral tradition. You want to make it mandatory that it's one or the other, and nowhere does God command this, in either oral tradition or Sacred Scripture.
2. No, I don't. Bible Christians can't seem to agree on anything. Why is the Holy Spirit failing so miserably?
If the Holy Spirit willed to enlighten us directly, one-by-one, there would be NO disagreement. How can anyone assert otherwise? Jesus breathed the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles, and by the laying of hands, this has been passed on from generation to generation through the Church which He established. The Holy Spirit guarantees the teaching authority of the Church, not do-it-yourself exegesis. The results of Protestant do-it-yourself exegesis are staggeringly bad, given the grotesque lack of unity among the various sects. (Really? The Holy Spirit wants gay, women bishops?)
3. Jesus preferred fallible, sinful men for the gargantuan task of spreading the Gospel to the world. Do you doubt His wisdom in doing so? Why or why not?
Again, you deny the power of the Holy Spirit (which is infallible), and place your trust on men (who is very much fallible).
No one's denying the power of the Holy Spirit to guide men. You're denying the power of the Holy Spirit to use whatever means He chooses to do so:
John 3:8
The Spirit breatheth where he will; and thou hearest his voice, but thou knowest not whence he cometh, and whither he goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
How else are you to teach something to someone, and have it stand the test of time, unless you write it down?
Jesus taught by example. Was this lacking?
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.
So, at last count, only Matthew, Peter, Paul, James, and John, and Jude wrote letters/Gospels. Did all the others fail in their mission? And as far as I can tell, none of what you said can be found in Scripture.
Additionally, Christ can't be the Creator and the creation, so casting Him as the cornerstone implies that He is a part lesser than the whole (the Temple).
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.
This belief contradicts Scripture:
1. Luke 6:28 - Jesus: "Bless them that curse you, and pray for them that calumniate you."
2. Matthew 5:44 - Jesus: "do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you:"
3. 2 Corinthians 13: - Paul: "For we rejoice that we are weak, and you are strong. This also we pray for, your perfection."
4. Colossians 1:9 - Paul: "Therefore we also, from the day that we heard it, cease not to pray for you..."
5. 1 Thessalonians 5 - Paul: "Brethren, pray for us."
6. 2 Thessalonians 3 - Paul:"For the rest, brethren, pray for us, that the word of God may run, and may be glorified, even as among you;"
7. Hebrews 13:18 - Paul: "Pray for us. For we trust we have a good conscience, being willing to behave ourselves well in all things."
8. James 5:16 - James: " Confess therefore your sins one to another: and pray one for another, that you may be saved. For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much."
But hailing Mary does neither of those
Luke 1:28 - Gabriel: "Hail, full of grace..." Comments?
Mary is physically dead. She cannot hear you any more than my grandfather can hear me.
Again, I ask you, how did Tabitha hear Peter? How did Lazarus hear Jesus? The evidence in Scripture indicates that the dead can hear our prayers.
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?
Scripture doesn't mention a lot of things that we all, as Christians believe in - e.g., the Trinity, Christmas on December 25th, Sunday worship. Since Scripture abundantly endorses interceding to God for one another, and since the Catholic Church believes that the saints can and do intercede for us, there's nothing wrong with asking Mary for her assistance anymore than it would be wrong to ask a friend or loved one to say a prayer on your behalf.
See the above note on the special gifts bestowed to the 1st Church to establish it’s credibility.
That doesn't disprove that the dead can hear our prayers in Heaven. The proof is that she responded to his voice. Where's the contrary evidence?
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.
What does it mean then?
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.
A challenge? But I thought the Holy Spirit interprets Scripture for you. How can this be a challenge for someone who is enlightened by the Holy Spirit just by reading Scripture?
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?
There's no need at all. It's a blessing that they do. But there it is, plain as day, in Revelation.
Christ is sufficient, but then, it was sufficient for Him to die for just one soul, if that's what He desired. He desired more and He gave us more. The communion of saints is a blessing, not a curse.
Why is anything or anyone else necessary, unless Christ’s work on the cross was not complete?
Christ's work on the cross completes mankind's atonement for Original Sin and give us access to the graces that Original Sin prevents us from having. By receiving these graces through the sacraments of penance, we receive forgiveness for our sins. Since we are still cursed with concupiscence, we still sin, and still require God's mercy. The death of Our Lord saves us from certain condemnation and provides the path to salvation, but it does not impose salvation on anyone since we all have free will to accept or reject those graces.
She’s no more full of grace or favored than anyone else in Scripture who was chosen by God for a specific purpose.
Facts are not in evidence. No one else was called "full of grace" (kecharitomene), so I don't see how you compare her with others who were given special missions.
In fact, any saved Christian, saved by grace and indwelled with the holy spirit, is exactly as “full of Grace” as Mary was.
Except that Mary was called "full of grace" before the act of Redemption. How is that?
God shows no partiality, but uses certain people for certain reasons to carry out His perfect will.
God showed an awful lot of partiality to Israel, wouldn't you say? They certainly did nothing to earn His affection.
Would you hail Ruth? Esther? Hannah? in the same way?
If a heavenly messenger, created as a higher being, came to them and saluted any of these women with praise, I would. But Mary is the only human being in Scripture (other than Christ) who enjoyed the veneration of an angel (an archangel, much less).
1. Why do you, personally, need anything more than Scripture?
As soon as I figure out why God needed to create the universe in the first place, I'll have an answer.
2. Why do you, personally, need any other intercession than Christ’s?
Because Christ Himself commands us to intercede for one another.
3. Why do you, personally, need the interpretations and traditions of men over trusting the Holy Spirit to illumine scriptural truths for you?
So I don't go off and create my own church, which ultimately belies the notion that the Holy Spirit is guiding much of anything.
Why are those things not sufficient for you? Why do you need Christ + ___, or the Scriptures + _____, or the Holy Spirit + ______.?
Because by that line of thinking, Christ, above all, is enough, and therefore, we do not even need the Scriptures or the Holy Spirit.
Sola is a beautiful and uncluttered word!
I'm grateful that God was not content with being Sola.