An objection against Marian devotion dealt with.

[Teallaura]

Hint in return. I can't read your mind, and I deal with many other discussions than this one (here, and elsewhere). IOW, I'm not following you here. Please be more explicit.

Okay - but it's self evident.

If you need to enlist Mary's aid just to get Jesus to do His job then it brings into question whether or not He is the intercessor that Scripture says He is. hence assuming the need to get Mary's help brings the truth of Scripture itself into question.

You're asking scripture to bear the entire point, which is unreasonable. Scripture does not pretend to give us everything; the gospels are limited snapshots of Jesus' life and ministry, Acts doesn't even mention most of the apostles (let alone discuss their acts in detail), and the epistles pretty much dealt with problems as they arose. What I do know is that I just visited a myrrh-streaming icon of Mary, through which multitudes of healings have occurred in just the past 3.5 years since it began streaming. Stage 4 breast cancer doesn't go away overnight. People with a brain aneurism don't go from a coma to fully recovered with no effects in a matter of minutes (that was a Protestant). People who drop dead of a heart attack, whom the nurses present have declared hopeless after attempted CPR, don't suddenly start breathing and singing a Marian hymn when a drop of myrrh lands on him (no lingering effects there either). A man's malady isn't suddenly cured at home at the exact moment his wife is anointed with myrrh at the church (how's that for proof marriage makes two people one?). Girls disfigured in a dog attack (half her upper lip was ripped off) deal with the disfigurement the rest of their lives, not have it disappear overnight after being anointed with the myrrh (she was a wiccan, and this was her first time in a church; she's now a catechumen). This and more is why I don't care that the case for Marian (and other saintly) intercession is not explicitly laid out in scripture. Let God work as He wills, already!

/soapbox

No, I'm pointing out that this is an very weak point and does not really do what you guys think it does. It not only won't support the argument (Mary as intercessor's intercessor) - which is what you assume I am talking about here - it doesn't even support the point (an example of such intercession as evidence of continued such intercession or a normative of such intercession)- which is what I actually meant (to be fair, that might not have been clear enough).

That God is capable of using even bad doctrine to do His will is not in question. I didn't even argue pro or con on Marian devotion (although if Scripture won't support it I find it suspect - but we ain't that far along yet!) - I just looked at the Scripture offered and the point attempted and found the connection wanting - and evidently, you find the same or you wouldn't be ranting that Scripture doesn't have to support everything.

That might be true - but this would be a very odd omission.

[Teallaura]

Like this?

"Why would God want us to pray to Mary, when we can go straight to Him, its not nescessary. Bathsheba might have acted as an intercessor, but that's because Solomon isn't omniscient." That's the objection I wanted to deal with. You can read my response to the objection at the bottom of my OP.

I'm sorry to ask but is this part of the OP invisible? Even in the past few posts I've been writing, no one has cited the quoted part.

He's arguing that, in ANE culture, the mother of the king was often a powerful political figure in her own right because of her unique relationship to the king. People would often use her as a conduit to the king. Because of that historical fact (as exemplified by Adonijah's request via Bathsheba), it is not a stretch to say that Mary can be seen to be in that same position. I disagree with his assertion that queen mothers were specially crowned as such (they weren't), as well as his corollary asserting that Mary was invested with special grace (it is not necessary).

Okay, read it again. Before I get started let me make darn sure I get this - so, if it is not necessary, why should we accept that it happens? From the Protestant POV the 'necessary' thing is itself necessary so this assertion is going to have to be supported to get it accepted. I don't want to get into a lot of detail since we tend to bog down and you wanted to deal with this particular argument. As stated, it's weak and does not answer the objection (other than as an assertion).

Explain it to me, please.

[One Bad Pig]

Okay - but it's self evident.

If you need to enlist Mary's aid just to get Jesus to do His job then it brings into question whether or not He is the intercessor that Scripture says He is. hence assuming the need to get Mary's help brings the truth of Scripture itself into question.

Who is arguing that we need to enlist Mary's aid just to get Jesus to do His job? We don't need to enlist Pastor Bob to pray for us either. Prayer is not about letting God know what we want/need or cajoling Him into helping us. Prayer draws us closer to God, just as asking Pastor Bob (or Mary) to pray for us draws us closer to them.

No, I'm pointing out that this is an very weak point and does not really do what you guys think it does. It not only won't support the argument (Mary as intercessor's intercessor) - which is what you assume I am talking about here - it doesn't even support the point (an example of such intercession as evidence of continued such intercession or a normative of such intercession)- which is what I actually meant (to be fair, that might not have been clear enough).

That God is capable of using even bad doctrine to do His will is not in question. I didn't even argue pro or con on Marian devotion (although if Scripture won't support it I find it suspect - but we ain't that far along yet!) - I just looked at the Scripture offered and the point attempted and found the connection wanting - and evidently, you find the same or you wouldn't be ranting that Scripture doesn't have to support everything.

Well, there's part of the misunderstanding. I was only trying to show that Mary can intercede. Of course it doesn't support the contention that the practice is normative.

That might be true - but this would be a very odd omission.

Why?

[One Bad Pig]

Okay, read it again. Before I get started let me make darn sure I get this - so, if it is not necessary, why should we accept that it happens? From the Protestant POV the 'necessary' thing is itself necessary so this assertion is going to have to be supported to get it accepted. I don't want to get into a lot of detail since we tend to bog down and you wanted to deal with this particular argument. As stated, it's weak and does not answer the objection (other than as an assertion).

Explain it to me, please.

Not quite sure I get you here. Are you saying that you'll ignore evidence of something spiritual happening if it's not supported as necessary from scripture?

[Teallaura]

Who is arguing that we need to enlist Mary's aid just to get Jesus to do His job? We don't need to enlist Pastor Bob to pray for us either. Prayer is not about letting God know what we want/need or cajoling Him into helping us. Prayer draws us closer to God, just as asking Pastor Bob (or Mary) to pray for us draws us closer to them.

Obviously, you didn't mean to but it was strongly implied in the 'more reason to' thing.

Well, there's part of the misunderstanding. I was only trying to show that Mary can intercede. Of course it doesn't support the contention that the practice is normative.

Why, it wasn't in question.

Why?

Goes back to 'necessary'.

[Teallaura]

Not quite sure I get you here. Are you saying that you'll ignore evidence of something spiritual happening if it's not supported as necessary from scripture?

No, going strictly from his argument. I would discount events that contradict Scripture but it wouldn't have to be supported as necessary in Scripture for me to consider it.

But the argument proper goes a lot further than 'Mary can intercede' - THAT is a matter touching on the doctrine of Christ's intercession and from a Protestant POV yeah, you are going to need to show necessity for an intermediary because it appears to conflict with Scripture.

[One Bad Pig]

But the argument proper goes a lot further than 'Mary can intercede' - THAT is a matter touching on the doctrine of Christ's intercession and from a Protestant POV yeah, you are going to need to show necessity for an intermediary because it appears to conflict with Scripture.

Asking someone to intercede for you appears to conflict with scripture?

[Teallaura]

Asking someone to intercede for you appears to conflict with scripture?

Not. What. I. Said.

[One Bad Pig]

You're right, I apologize. You're asking me to show something I don't believe, however - namely, that an intermediary is necessary.

[Teallaura]

No prob! And no, it's not that I expect you to make a case that you don't believe - it's that without that case, you're expecting me to accept things outside my beliefs.


Basically, minus a necessity, I see no reason to assume one. Without Scripture to back it up, I distrust doctrine developed from experience. That doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong, of course, but it doesn't give me the means to confirm it - and as a good little Wesleyan, Scripture is supreme. Without that back up, experiential evidence is interesting but ultimately not compelling.

That's part of the need for a necessity - it gives a strong basis for an inferential case since a direct case is not made in Scripture. It's also why we Protestants looked at the Scripture Leo cited and became fixated on the fact that it didn't support the case. Sola Scriptura, and its cousins, run very deep in Protestant theology - you're (general) not going to be able to make a compelling case for a Protestant without being able to make some reasonable case (even inferential) from Scripture. What Leo sees as a silly objection is actually a very strong objection from the Protestant POV - which is why we started talking about necessity because we need something substantial which meets our existing standard or shows it mistaken.

We can't get to Step Three because we seem to be coming at this from very different frameworks.

[One Bad Pig]

No prob! And no, it's not that I expect you to make a case that you don't believe - it's that without that case, you're expecting me to accept things outside my beliefs.

Basically, minus a necessity, I see no reason to assume one.

Not quite sure I get your meaning here. Are you saying that you're not willing to consider a possibility because the case can't be made for a necessity?

Without Scripture to back it up, I distrust doctrine developed from experience. That doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong, of course, but it doesn't give me the means to confirm it - and as a good little Wesleyan, Scripture is supreme. Without that back up, experiential evidence is interesting but ultimately not compelling.

That's part of the need for a necessity - it gives a strong basis for an inferential case since a direct case is not made in Scripture. It's also why we Protestants looked at the Scripture Leo cited and became fixated on the fact that it didn't support the case. Sola Scriptura, and its cousins, run very deep in Protestant theology - you're (general) not going to be able to make a compelling case for a Protestant without being able to make some reasonable case (even inferential) from Scripture. What Leo sees as a silly objection is actually a very strong objection from the Protestant POV - which is why we started talking about necessity because we need something substantial which meets our existing standard or shows it mistaken.

Hence my earlier post re Sola Scriptura; I knew that would be a sticking point.

We can't get to Step Three because we seem to be coming at this from very different frameworks.

Unfortunately. I can see where you're coming from, having been there myself.

[Teallaura]

Not quite sure I get your meaning here. Are you saying that you're not willing to consider a possibility because the case can't be made for a necessity?
....

In this instance, pretty much. There are lesser points of doctrine where I'd consider doing so - but this touches on Christ's intercession. If it is not a necessary condition then one is left with a really big 'why do it' hole. I don't find any compelling answer to that and several reasons not to. There's no perfect way to phrase my objections that wouldn't sound disrespectful (which is NOT intended) and I'm not sure I can do a good job explaining the theological grounds for the one that doesn't sound disrespectful right now (busy and not feeling great at the moment). Since we're at an impasse, I'd just as soon not tackle any of that - it wouldn't advance us anyway.

[One Bad Pig]

In this instance, pretty much. There are lesser points of doctrine where I'd consider doing so - but this touches on Christ's intercession. If it is not a necessary condition then one is left with a really big 'why do it' hole. I don't find any compelling answer to that and several reasons not to.

From my POV, that's like asking 'why ask anyone to pray for you'. Come to think of it, I'd be interested in someone making a compelling case for that from scripture.

There's no perfect way to phrase my objections that wouldn't sound disrespectful (which is NOT intended) and I'm not sure I can do a good job explaining the theological grounds for the one that doesn't sound disrespectful right now (busy and not feeling great at the moment). Since we're at an impasse, I'd just as soon not tackle any of that - it wouldn't advance us anyway.

Ok. I hope you feel better soon.

[Teallaura]

From my POV, that's like asking 'why ask anyone to pray for you'. Come to think of it, I'd be interested in someone making a compelling case for that from scripture.

There's a difference between asking a living person and praying to a dead one.

And it's an easy case to make - remember Job's friends?

Ok. I hope you feel better soon.

Thanks.

[One Bad Pig]

There's a difference between asking a living person and praying to a dead one.

He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living. (Mark 12:27) Aside from not getting an affirmative response from the departed that they will pray for you, I don't see much difference. Asking and praying do have semantic overlap.

And it's an easy case to make - remember Job's friends?

In general, yes. It's been a while since I read through the book, though.