MOI? InferiORiddy complex? It is to LAFF! hah HAH!
There! I trust I've disposed of that.
I may have said this once before. it may be obvious to everyonw but me, but it's a whole new idea to moi.
Analogy: Pole A (the thing we know): We cannot "PROVE" Newton's Laws of Motion from observation. BUT when we postulate the laws of motion and the law of graviuty, we find that nature makes WAY more sense and is more predictable, and more useful.
Pole B (the thing we are asked to consider): We cannot PROVE the Doctrine of the Trinity (or the RCC/EO notion of Church, works, etc.) FROM Scripture. BUT when we postulate them, Scripture (and our lives) make more sense, are more predictable, blah blah blah.
Further, theology will always be a mess. Always, Because everything we say about God, is wronger than it is right, because every act of predication about God is made in a grammatical structure that treats God like any other entity fit to be subject of a sentence.
That does NOT mean that some things are NOT wronger (or not better, more true) than others. Some things ought to be said, and some ought NOT to be said, at least not without a lot of hedging and weaselling.
Further, the phenomena of religious experience are very difficult to nail down in a way that one can build a compelling and rhetorically persuaive logical argument from them. I remember making a mobius strip and saying,"See it has only one side!" My interlocutor said, "No. it's just that when you say side, you mean something different from what I mean." It was a long an painful process to get her to see that when she THOUGHT about what she meant by side, she saw that she meant, well, the kind of thing that a mobius strip only has one of.
If the number of sides a mobius stip has is so difficult to reach a conclusive agreement on, how much harder will it be to reach a good understandig of the word "salvific" in the economy of salvtion?
You ever try to talk to a woman ( or person of the sex that you ain't of) about the difference between men and women? Whenever I haven't been frustrated enough, I try that one again. Almost without exception what always happens is that after some conversation you think you've actually reached an agreement. Call the papers! Breakthrough. The prospect of peace in the war of the sexes. But then one or other party to the conversation attempts a mere rephrasing, possibly with an example. And the other one says,"Are you KIDDING ME? That's not it at ALL!"
So also when RCCs and Protestants gather to discuss prayer to Mary or the word Salvific, as it applies to works.
That's what I mean by hard or impossible to prove
Here is some good data I came upon at Seminary.
Not my own data but by Billie Hanks, Jr.
Starts with a hypothetical concept statement
The Trinity
Concept Statement: If there is one God, and if there are three persons called God in the Bible, then by faith I must accept the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, even though my mind can not fully comprehend how God can be one yet three in perfect harmony and completeness.
1. Deuteronomy 6:4- There is only one God, Jehovah.
2. Isaiah 43:10-11 – He is the LORD and only Savior.
3. Isaiah 44:6- He is the first and the last.
4. Revelation 1:8- He is the Lord God Almighty, the Alpha and Omega.
5. Revelation 22:13, 16- Jesus is the first and the last, the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End.
6. Revelation 1:17-18 – The one God who was the first and the last died and rose again!
7. Hebrews 1:1, 2,8- God the Father calls the Son, “God.”
8. Acts 5:3-4 – Peter calls the Holy Spirit, “God.”
9. John 6:27- Jesus calls the Father, “God.”
The Trinity revealed in the Resurrection
1. Acts 10:39-40 – God raise Christ from the dead.
2. 1 Thessalonians 1:10- God the Father raised the Son from the dead.
3. Romans 8:11- God the Spirit raised the Son from the dead.
4. John 2:19-22- God the Son raised Himself from the dead.
You continue to confuse proof with persuasion. Also, I did not say that everything the Chruch teaches can be proven from scripture. Sola Fide is scripturally wrong, -- this is why all Protestant arguments to the contrary sidestep and obfuscate. Mariology, on the other hand, is mostly from Tradition and reason, but there are few prooftexts.