The Baldie Vs Mariology

[foudroyant]

The same way we believe a lot of other doctrines which are not explicitly taught in the Bible, but are implied. Such as voluntary substance addiction being immoral, even though what is only specifically mentioned is that drunkenness is bad.



The people in Heaven are alive and are quite capable of praying.



There's a couple of hidden assumptions made during this which almost no theologian would grant, especially not the last one: 1) Saints have roughly the same abilities as mortal humans, the process of meeting God has left them more or less unchanged. 2) In order for someone to pray for you, they have to know everything about the request. 3) There's time in Heaven which corresponds to time on Earth so that one minute of Earth-time equals one minute of subjective Heaven-time.

With these three assumptions its pretty clear that anyone would get swamped in prayer requests as the angels carry them up to you, and even if they got one, wouldn't know what to pray for. None of these assumptions seem well defended. Its always been taught, and its clearly implied in the scripture, that we won't merely be restored to the naturally pure state of Adam and Eve, we'll be raised to supernatural glory. I have no problem seeing the saints given far greater mental abilities in order to more fully participate in God's triune nature and praise him. Secondly, even if they were still more or less the same in terms of abilities, they're in Heaven. If need be they have an eternity to consider even a single second of Earth time, since time doesn't apply to Heaven.

And finally saints, while I think they understand far more of a prayer request and what to pray for, than anyone on Earth does, no more need to be omniscient about the prayer request than you have to be in order to pray for someone else.



So why do you ask other people to pray for you? If it doesn't matter if people pray on your behalf, what's the point?

You keep repeating a claim that Catholics believe the saints are the ones doing things instead of God. They're petitioning God for graces on our behalf. Exactly the same as what you do when you kneel and pray for your family before going to bed, or for anyone who asked you to pray.

The way you repeat your accusations, even when they've been answered, makes me think you've already made up your mind about this and you're not really paying attention to what's being said. Its fine enough if you want to discuss, but then at least interact with the points offered to you.

Substance addiction falls under what not to do by the Greek word pharmakeia (Galatians 5:20).
I'm not talking about the people in heaven praying but people on earth praying to those in heaven who have departed.
For anyone to fully know the hearts of those who pray to those in heaven (because many times prayer is silent) would require omniscience. They would not fully know if the people praying unto them are sincere in their requests. None but the omniscient God would know this.
If I and a myriad of others silently asked a friend of ours to pray for our various concerns there is no way he could perform such a duty. That is the difference. It does indeed take omniscience to perform such an incredibly specific task.
Furthermore, if you are comparing asking a friend to pray for you and asking a person in heaven to do the same thing then for one the person on earth may forget to pray and two since both parties do not FULLY knows the hearts of such requests they may not present them to God PERFECTLY the way one can achieve when going directly to Him -> as they ought.

Romans 8:26-27 reads:
In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. (NASB)
To claim that prayers be made unto others besides God is asserting that they FULLY know the mind of the Spirit which is blasphemous for once again that would be asserting that they too are the heart-knower of all (omniscient) -> God.

So my accusations have NOT been answered. You and others try wiggling around the truth of who God is and what He alone is capable of knowing.

[RBerman]

(i) God has told us so through his Church, (ii) God has given us enough in scripture that we can believe Mary is Eve, but are not 'forced to' - in much the same way as one might say that God has provided enough evidence of himself that one can come to believe that God exists, but one is not 'forced to' that conclusion, and (iii) The statement "IF God had wanted us to think of Mary as the new Eve, THEN he would have indicated so more clearly in scripture" seems to me to be hopelessly speculative. This last point is really the key point for me, it seems like we are in no position to appraise the truth of those kinds of conditional (possibly counter-factual) statements, or at least we cannot decide them with any reasonable confidence. Consider, for instance, that there may be a counterfactual like this "If God had indicated more clearly in scripture that Mary is the second Eve, then fewer people would come to a knowledge of God" - that may be a strange counter-factual, but for all we know it could be true. If it were, then we would expect that God would refrain from any clearer indication in scripture about Mary being the second Eve. We just don't know enough to say with any confidence what God would do. Notice we could play the same 'trick' with any doctrine, from the Filioque, to the two wills of Christ, to the rejection of Ontologism; if it were true, and God wanted all men to believe it, then God would have clearly noted it in Scripture. These are all abstruse matters of systematic theology (as important as they are). What we can say is that given how the Bible was written, the majority of it's readers have come to believe in the Filioque, the two wills of Christ, and Mary's Immaculate nature (and so on). It looks empirically like if God wanted people to believe those things, he would have written the Bible pretty much exactly like he did, ceteris paribus.

Assent to (I) requires the prior assumption that ideas promulgated through the Church necessarily constitute a message from God. I do not accept this as a given; it remains to be seen whether each thing taught by some branch of the Church is true or not. Again, if the point at hand is valid and widely agreed upon, then good arguments in its favor should be readily available, and your view will prevail based on the merits of the actual arguments, with no need to appeal to the authority of the Church.

(ii) By this point in the thread, you are surely aware that your attempt to prove the Mary/Eve connection from Scripture has not persuaded me; quite the contrary, pretty much every point you proposed seems problematic. Either I am contrary, or your arguments look good only to those already persuaded. Or both...

(iii) I do not consider my previous comment speculative, but your challenge does bring up an important difference that likely lies between us. Because I do not consider the Church inherently authoritative, but only authoritative to the extent that it conforms to Scripture's ultimate authority, I also use Scripture's topicality as a guide to the topics that God does and does not consider important "for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17). I understand Scripture's self-testimony to be that it teaches that which is important for us to know about spiritual matters; ergo, lacunae in the teaching of Scripture show topics that are not important. What did Jesus do every day of his childhood? Unimportant. How long between Adam's creation and his sin? Unimportant. And so on through a zillion questions I have on topics that the Bible touches briefly and tangentially. We should major in what the Bible majors in, and minor in what the Bible minors in. A Mary/Eve connection gets no space in the Bible, and accordingly I give it no space in my systematic theology.

You are quite right, "Catholicism is true" does want of some clarification. Perhaps instead of defining it as "all and only the doctrines of the Catholic Church are true" or something to that effect, I will try to give a more modest definition which will entail something like that one. It would go something like this: the necessary and sufficient conditions for the statement "Catholicism is true" to be true are (i) that one of the 'essentials' of orthodox Christian belief is that there is a Church on earth with the Apostolic authority to teach, infallibly, concerning Christian doctrine, and (ii) that this Church is extensionally identical to the Catholic Church.

I see no grounds for either of those claims, but that sounds like another thread.

[robrecht]

... A Mary/Eve connection gets no space in the Bible, and accordingly I give it no space in my systematic theology. ...

Luckily, we have the example of the church fathers who were much more willing to theologize based on common sense and their own creative imagination and intelligence.

[Spartacus]

Substance addiction falls under what not to do by the Greek word pharmakeia (Galatians 5:20).
I'm not talking about the people in heaven praying but people on earth praying to those in heaven who have departed.
For anyone to fully know the hearts of those who pray to those in heaven (because many times prayer is silent) would require omniscience. They would not fully know if the people praying unto them are sincere in their requests. None but the omniscient God would know this.
If I and a myriad of others silently asked a friend of ours to pray for our various concerns there is no way he could perform such a duty. That is the difference. It does indeed take omniscience to perform such an incredibly specific task.
Furthermore, if you are comparing asking a friend to pray for you and asking a person in heaven to do the same thing then for one the person on earth may forget to pray and two since both parties do not FULLY knows the hearts of such requests they may not present them to God PERFECTLY the way one can achieve when going directly to Him -> as they ought.

Romans 8:26-27 reads:
In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. (NASB)
To claim that prayers be made unto others besides God is asserting that they FULLY know the mind of the Spirit which is blasphemous for once again that would be asserting that they too are the heart-knower of all (omniscient) -> God.

So my accusations have NOT been answered. You and others try wiggling around the truth of who God is and what He alone is capable of knowing.

Even setting aside the possibility that the saints are participating somehow in God's omniscience through Theosis (which I think is the best explanation anyway), does knowing the intention of any number of people who are praying to you mean that you also know the intention of every heart at every moment at any point in past, present, or future? Do they know everything that has ever happened? If not, then it is not omniscience. It is an incremental and not an infinite increase in knowledge. You're making a huge leap here.

[One Bad Pig]

Then why would you believe something that is not there?

Because I'm not an advocate of solo scriptura?

Asking someone who has not departed to pray for you has biblical precedent. Asking someone who has departed to do the same has zero biblical precedent.

Praying with your eyes closed has zero biblical precedent. Do you do that? If so, why? I ask the righteous departed to pray for me because "The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much."

Indeed, if you asked another person to pray for you while billions others silently asked the same person to pray for them about various needs there is no way that person could fully understand all the needs of every person.

With God it is possible but with anything/anyone else it is not.

Indeed, only with God is it possible. Did you imagine I thought people could hear silent prayers without God's help? Your argument appears to be limiting the amount of help God can give. Do you really want to go there?

[RBerman]

Luckily, we have the example of the church fathers who were much more willing to theologize based on common sense and their own creative imagination and intelligence.

I suspect it's not a difference in common sense, or intelligence, or imagination. I suspect it's a different set of inputs which causes the arguments which seem persuasive to you (and apparently to them) to fall so flat with many people in the last 500 years, myself included.

[foudroyant]

Even setting aside the possibility that the saints are participating somehow in God's omniscience through Theosis (which I think is the best explanation anyway), does knowing the intention of any number of people who are praying to you mean that you also know the intention of every heart at every moment at any point in past, present, or future? Do they know everything that has ever happened? If not, then it is not omniscience. It is an incremental and not an infinite increase in knowledge. You're making a huge leap here.

The answer to your question is yes. God fully knows what happened in your past that prompts you to ask of Him, He is fully able to hear you (and all others) that ask Him and He fully knows for what future purpose you ask Him.

That is omniscience.

Can anyone but God FULLY know what the mind of the Spirit is?

[foudroyant]

Because I'm not an advocate of solo scriptura?

Praying with your eyes closed has zero biblical precedent. Do you do that? If so, why? I ask the righteous departed to pray for me because "The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much."

Indeed, only with God is it possible. Did you imagine I thought people could hear silent prayers without God's help? Your argument appears to be limiting the amount of help God can give. Do you really want to go there?

James 5:16 has to do with those who have not departed. It is in the context of healing. Those that are in heaven are not in need of healing.
To be able to fully understand myriads of people in silent prayer would require knowing the totality of their hearts. If God gave people the ability to fully know the hearts of others then that means God created at least one other God for to be the heart-knower of all is the same thing as being omniscient.
Plus the fact Romans 8:26-27 teaches that the Spirit intercedes for the believer when he/she prays. Does anyone else (besides God) fully know what the mind of the Spirit is from which these prayers are rendered?

[Spartacus]

The answer to your question is yes. God fully knows what happened in your past that prompts you to ask of Him, He is fully able to hear you (and all others) that ask Him and He fully knows for what future purpose you ask Him.

That is omniscience.

Can anyone but God FULLY know what the mind of the Spirit is?

Whoever God chooses to share in this knowledge will share in this knowledge. Or do you doubt God's omnipotence?

[37818]

This is an interpretation based on the assumption of biblical inerrancy.

Is God inerrant? Are the texts in question not God's word? The problem is we the readers of the text are not inerrant. Nor are any of the copies handed down from the original autographs. Nor for that matter any translation. What is God's word is inerrant.

The basic meaning of the Greek is not ambiguous.

Matthew gives a line of who fathered whom. Luke on the other hand, who belongs to whom in descendance, who is "of" whom. mainly Sons and also Sons in law.

[robrecht]

Is God inerrant? Are the texts in question not God's word? The problem is we the readers of the text are not inerrant. Nor are any of the copies handed down from the original autographs. Nor for that matter any translation. What is God's word is inerrant.

Matthew gives a line of who fathered whom. Luke on the other hand, who belongs to whom in descendance, who is "of" whom. mainly Sons and also Sons in law.

Yes. Yes, as understood and written down by men. Why wouldn't Luke be more explicit about Heli being the father-in-law of Joseph? How can you tell from the text of Luke where he intended father in the normal sense and when he intended father-in-law? See the ambiguity in speaking of God's word?

[One Bad Pig]

James 5:16 has to do with those who have not departed. It is in the context of healing. Those that are in heaven are not in need of healing.

Of course those in heaven are not in need of healing. That's not why I'm citing the verse. Try again.

To be able to fully understand myriads of people in silent prayer would require knowing the totality of their hearts. If God gave people the ability to fully know the hearts of others then that means God created at least one other God for to be the heart-knower of all is the same thing as being omniscient.
Plus the fact Romans 8:26-27 teaches that the Spirit intercedes for the believer when he/she prays. Does anyone else (besides God) fully know what the mind of the Spirit is from which these prayers are rendered?

You seem to enjoy immolating this strawman every chance you get. Repeating it doesn't make it any more true. Since you like support from scripture so much, why don't you go find where praying for someone requires knowing the totality of their hearts? I'll be waiting patiently.

[37818]

Yes. Yes, as understood and written down by men. Why wouldn't Luke be more explicit about Heli being the father-in-law of Joseph? How can you tell from the text of Luke where he intended father in the normal sense and when he intended father-in-law? See the ambiguity in speaking of God's word?

Again, the Greek, the names are all in the genitive case. Luke was explicit. It is the interpretation of the translator, who adds the additional words "the son" which is NOT in the Greek The KJV, RV, ASV, NASB and the NKJV all show that is the case, having the added words "the son" in italics to show the reader that is the thranslators interpretation. Another example of this genitive case being mistranslated in every translation is Mark 2:26, "Abiathar the high priest." The Greek for high priest is in the genitive case. Where it should be translated "Abiathar [son] of the high priest." Maids and servants of the high priest are not called "high priest." Neither should Abiathar in that historical context.

[foudroyant]

Whoever God chooses to share in this knowledge will share in this knowledge. Or do you doubt God's omnipotence?

God's omnipotence would not violate His omniscience.

[foudroyant]

Of course those in heaven are not in need of healing. That's not why I'm citing the verse. Try again.

You seem to enjoy immolating this strawman every chance you get. Repeating it doesn't make it any more true. Since you like support from scripture so much, why don't you go find where praying for someone requires knowing the totality of their hearts? I'll be waiting patiently.

Nothing in James teaches to pray to those (other than God) in heaven. You cited the Book of James so prove your point.

I am not talking about praying FOR someone but praying TO someone.

My reference to Romans 8:26-27 has not been addressed.