[Mad Dawg]

You are trying to take it from a "Communication with the dead [including Mary] is unbiblical" to "God makes communication with Mary possible." In all seriousness, I was just responding to one thing you said. I am not trying to prove the over all contention. You made the secretary crack. I responded to it. That's all. I didn't claim that my work with that comment proved the whole case. I said nothing about the whole question.

You said something like "That makes Jesus Mary's secretary." I responded. and now you say I am switching the subject. It is if you were saying, NOT only is it unbiblical and preposterous on a thousand other grounds, but it makes Jesus Mary's secretary. And I address everything after the but, and nothing else. I wasn't responding to everything you ever said, or even some other things you ever said. I wasn't saying it was Biblical. I wasn't saying it was free of any other objections. I was responding to one thing and only one thing.

First, it has to be biblical, which it is not. Second, it has to show up in Scripture as something that we are supposed to do.

Sez you. That's your canon of proof, not mine, which is why I wasn't addressing that. I was only addressing your comment about Jesus being Mary's secretary. (And as far as I'm concerned, even by your canon I would sya it has to show up as something we MAY do - or as somethng that is explicitly forbidden -- and then we could argue about the state of the "Departed" since the resurrection.

No, because it still creates a rather odd scenario. We communicate with Mary. Mary can't hear it so Jesus takes the message. Mary gets the message and then tells Jesus what it was.

leaving aside questions about the operation of various persons of the Trinity, that's how I think ALL communication takes place. It wouldn't be exceptional for communication with the saints in heaven to take place that way. It would be normal (stipulating arguendo that such communication takes place at all.)

Now, if you had said that God gave Mary omniscience, then he is no longer her secretary.

Not even then. Mary could never have omniscience "in her own right". If we want to use time language about it, then we would say that IF God gave Mary omniscience, He would maintain it, preserve it, operate it for her at every infinitessimal quantum of time. He is the factotum and the facsemper.

God always works things for the good of His people. This does not mean that He is the people's servant. His actions are that of a benefactor. But it is 100% His will and plan, not ours.

OH. I'm getting it. You're on the "obedience" side of "Servant" I'm on the "service" side. God is not obedient to the people (which God forbid!), He is not their servant to boss around. He is their servant in that He serves them , and commands them to join Him in service to one another. In His perfect self-disclosure He comes among us as one who serves.

We don't know that we will be omniscient as He is omniscient.

Again: I am very open to the concept that there are people, much less saints in heaven and angels, who know more than I do about what's going on and any number of things. I do not think therefore they are omniscient. Saying that Mary can handle a bunch of incoming and outgoing calls is not equivalent to saying she is omniscient an domnipotent. I don't think any RC theologian attributes omniscience to Mary, but I could be wrong. "Like" is not the same as "same" (even in Greek. ) And she could me "pluriscient" and "pluripotent" without being omniscient or omnipotent. "Greater things than these ...."

[Blogger]

You are trying to take it from a "Communication with the dead [including Mary] is unbiblical" to "God makes communication with Mary possible." In all seriousness, I was just responding to one thing you said. I am not trying to prove the over all contention. You made the secretary crack. I responded to it. That's all. I didn't claim that my work with that comment proved the whole case. I said nothing about the whole question.
Fair enough. I can see how at least part of our conversation took off in the direction it did. My "secretary crack" stemmed from Annalex's answer to my question about whether or not Mary was omniscient and omnipresent. He/She answered that Mary was with Jesus who is. Then you jumped in the conversation and off we went.

You said something like "That makes Jesus Mary's secretary." I responded. and now you say I am switching the subject. It is if you were saying, NOT only is it unbiblical and preposterous on a thousand other grounds, but it makes Jesus Mary's secretary.
In the context of Annalex's response, yes. That was the implication.

And I address everything after the but, and nothing else. I wasn't responding to everything you ever said, or even some other things you ever said. I wasn't saying it was Biblical. I wasn't saying it was free of any other objections. I was responding to one thing and only one thing.
Fair enough.

First, it has to be biblical, which it is not. Second, it has to show up in Scripture as something that we are supposed to do.

Sez you. That's your canon of proof, not mine, which is why I wasn't addressing that.
Okay. What is your canon of proof?
(And as far as I'm concerned, even by your canon I would sya it has to show up as something we MAY do - or as somethng that is explicitly forbidden -- and then we could argue about the state of the "Departed" since the resurrection.
It is the same as the departed before the resurrection at this point in time since nobody but Christ has a glorified body as of yet. Prior to the resurrection people went to either 1) The place where Old Testament Saints went or 2)The place where those who were not believers went. One was a place of punishment and one was a place of rest. The Spirits of the departed or whichever stripe are no more alive now than they were then. Some live forever in torment. Some live forever in bliss. That hasn't changed. With the resurrection, the location of the ones living in bliss has changed. We now go to heaven and are immediately in the presence of our Risen Lord. As Scripture plainly says, to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.

With that foundation, when the Old Testament forbad people from trying to communicate with the dead (as Saul did to Samuel knowing full well that it was forbidden), it wasn't forbidding people from communicating with people in a basic state that was different than the state that those who die in Christ reside in today. Samuel was a saved believer in Christ (from the other side of the cross). Saul sinned when he tried to communicate with him. Further, you do not see the practice instituted in the New Testament at all. I don't think it occurred to them to try to pray to the dead in Christ. Peter spoke of the great persecution going on. They were all acquainted with those who had been martyred, and yet nowhere do you see any of them taking advantage of or instructing others to engage in prayers to the departed saints. James was martyred by the time Peter and Paul wrote their epistles. Stephen was martyred. By the time of the epistles. And, according to tradition, all of the apostles except for John were martyred by the time John wrote Revelation and possibly his other works were written late. None of them give an instruction to pray to the departed. So, the burden of proof rests upon you as far as that goes.

No, because it still creates a rather odd scenario. We communicate with Mary. Mary can't hear it so Jesus takes the message. Mary gets the message and then tells Jesus what it was.

leaving aside questions about the operation of various persons of the Trinity, that's how I think ALL communication takes place. It wouldn't be exceptional for communication with the saints in heaven to take place that way. It would be normal (stipulating arguendo that such communication takes place at all.)
It wouldn't be exceptional if it weren't unbiblical. Again, though, my comment isn't meant to be one defining the operation of the members of the Trinity. Rather, it is a spin off of Annalex's comment.

Now, if you had said that God gave Mary omniscience, then he is no longer her secretary.

Not even then. Mary could never have omniscience "in her own right". If we want to use time language about it, then we would say that IF God gave Mary omniscience, He would maintain it, preserve it, operate it for her at every infinitessimal quantum of time. He is the factotum and the facsemper.
Agreed.

God always works things for the good of His people. This does not mean that He is the people's servant. His actions are that of a benefactor. But it is 100% His will and plan, not ours.

OH. I'm getting it. You're on the "obedience" side of "Servant" I'm on the "service" side. God is not obedient to the people (which God forbid!), He is not their servant to boss around. He is their servant in that He serves them , and commands them to join Him in service to one another. In His perfect self-disclosure He comes among us as one who serves.
And the servant is not greater than the master. To call God our servant is to make us His master. To say that He is benevolent towards His children encounters no such difficulty. Christ became a servant as an example to us. He is not perpetually our servant though. He showers us with His love and grace, but not in service. Rather out of love and His own good pleasure to do so.



We don't know that we will be omniscient as He is omniscient.

Again: I am very open to the concept that there are people, much less saints in heaven and angels, who know more than I do about what's going on and any number of things. I do not think therefore they are omniscient. Saying that Mary can handle a bunch of incoming and outgoing calls is not equivalent to saying she is omniscient an domnipotent. I don't think any RC theologian attributes omniscience to Mary, but I could be wrong. "Like" is not the same as "same" (even in Greek. ) And she could me "pluriscient" and "pluripotent" without being omniscient or omnipotent. "Greater things than these .
She would also have to be pluripresent and all is mere hypothesis to justify a doctrine which finds no biblical support.

Mad Dawg, it if fine if you want to believe in prayers to Mary. Well, it isn't, but it is your choice and I'm not about to stand in the way of your or anyone else's choice. I'll try to reason with you from Scripture. But if you choose to do otherwise, then you choose to do otherwise. The facts are that Scriptural commentary concerning the person Mary is scant. None of it portrays her the way that Marian dogma has grown up around her. When it is referred to by Catholics, it is never taken for just what is on the page but is full of eisegetical inferences and traditional commentary. When Protestant protest Marian doctrine it is because we see it as not only non-biblical or extrabiblical but in many cases anti-biblical. Your statement that you pray to God more than Mary is a good one. I wish you didn't pray to her at all. But, I don't think you are a Mariolater (is that a word???) I can't say that about all of the defenses I have read and know what people are prone to. Thus, I will continue to make what I believe is the biblical case.