I have to get ready for work, so I'm just going to touch on a couple of points: I can see a problem with relying on the individual's perception of the Holy Spirit -- whether through evil intent or honest confusion anybody can claim the promptings of the Spirit. There's a whole church full of people who insist that the Holy Spirit is leading them to the "full meaning" of Scripture: homosexual 'bishops' and 'unions', abortion, priestesses, and basically the full liberal political program. It calls itself the Episcopal Church (that's why I shook the dust of that place off my sandals).
Maccabees was in the canon for centuries. And thereby hangs a long tale -- the OT that Jesus himself used included it and other Deuterocanonical books, but by the time the KJV was compiled the Jewish authorities had removed it from their canon. Some speculate that this was done because of anti-Christian feeling, who knows? but the fact remains that Christ used the LXX, not the later, truncated version.
As for the Virgin Mary, it seems to me that the Angelic Salutation and the Magnificat should settle that. "Filled with grace" (from all time and always) - "Who am I, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" - "Behold, all generations shall call me blessed - for He that is mighty hath magnified me" That hardly requires digging, or adding to Scripture.
And it's not necessary to worry about Mary supplanting her Son - remember what she said at Cana - "Do whatever he tells you." And she's the ultimate answer to feminist loons -- she didn't shove herself forward or insist on any privilege, but she was there, witnessing, from the time of Christ's conception to Pentecost. "Per Mariam ad Jesum."
But it seems to me that the most important reason we should not rely on the Bible alone is that it leaves hundreds and hundreds of years of believers completely out in the cold. Right up until the time of the Reformation, the overwhelming majority of people couldn't read. There was no middle class for most of that time (something Americans assume has always existed). Ordinary people couldn't even get a copy of the Bible, since they all had to be copied by hand. People went to Church, received instruction from the Church, and heard Scripture read in Church. Why would Christ have founded His Church and then left His people without comfort or instruction for 1500 years?
Sorry - gotta go - let's continue this conversation.
Civility has traditionally been a casualty in these discussions, which is unfortunate. No one wants to show up before Christ and be found a liar, or one that swallowed a lie. So it takes some diligence. Even Muslims are sincere, so we must go where truth takes us. And God says his word is truth.
We actually halfway agree on the Holy Spirit issue. For certain, no one can stand up and say, “The Holy Spirit said XX.” But many churches are doing that today, and as a former Episcopalian, I wholeheartedly agree that it might as well be Unitarian. Incidentally, my uncle is the bishop of a MAJOR U.S. city. But this points to a total misunderstanding of how the Holy Spirit works, which is a voluminous study. But in short, and dealing with the teaching ministry only (there are 8 other ministries the Holy Spirit is involved in), Jn 16:13 is the key verse. It must be used with all others in the context of the ministry of the Holy Spirit. The word travels in this fashion Father—>Jesus-—>Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit illuminates Scripture, but he doesn’t introduce anything new. He doesn’t speak of himself, but points everyone to the will of God, glorifying Christ. That eliminates any possibility of a new doctrine contrary to Scripture (although that certainly has not been the case).
Which is why we must: Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth (2Ti 2:15).
If one can rightly divide the Bible, then it most certainly can be wrongly divided. In essense, that is the result of all bad doctrine. Go through that workbook, and you won’t have that problem....ever.
The Jews removed all books introduced between Malachi and Matthew (400 years)....well before post reformation. Let me go find when that was debated. At Cartherage? The 8th century Masoretic text confirmed the OT that we have today, was the same books recognized by the Jews. But 8th century sounds way too late. The NT was closed in 367, so it follows that the OT was closed before that. Let me check on that.
Not sure where you are reading at about Mary. I’ve gone over Luke 1 over and over again, and I can’t find those words. The key verse is 1:35. The power of the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary— i.e., it covered her sinful nature.
The wedding at Cana, we agree. She already having had the revelation of who Jesus was, experienced his growth and stature; fully supports her witness to Jesus, and his authority. The problem is, Mary still remains an agent of grace within Catholic dogma, and this Scripture actually supports an opposite view— i.e., she was powerless to do anything— but she knew someone who could fix things.
We have a different view of church history, no doubt. I subscribe to John Kennedy’s “Torch of the Testimony”. There was always a church that held the truth. The problem was..they were relentlessly persecuted all the way up to the post-reformation. Sandwiched in between, we have the abuses of Rome, 7 crusades, and the Spanish Inquisition. Not a great tetimony of a spirit-filled church. On the contrary, the persecuted church is known by their testimony (their enemies wrote of them), but have largely been overlooked outside of orthodox Christian circles. I posted a summary on it today, but not very good to do it justice. Kennedy’s book is a must read in my opinion, no matter what side one chooses to go with. For the weighty subject matter, it was very enjoyable and digestable.
In Christ,
Salva