That is simply the typical RC recourse to argument from silence, that as Scripture does not exclude something, then it can be justified as true.
__________________________________
You misjudge. No Catholic should ever *use* an argument from silence to justify anything as being true. I was not attempting to anything of the sort. Perhaps I did not state it carefully enough.
And, I will remind us all again, that the evil of our times is increasing exponentially. Let us cease arguing over such things and commit ourselves to prayer for the conversion of the MANY peoples who have no clue of what is coming.
But that is what your argument is based upon, even if conjecture. And apart from egregious extrapolation, so is the idea of praying to departed saints, distinctively titling NT pastors "priests," the assumption, etc. as doctrine.
And which has been shown in extensive debate here in the past.
And, I will remind us all again, that the evil of our times is increasing exponentially. Let us cease arguing over such things and commit ourselves to prayer for the conversion of the MANY peoples who have no clue of what is coming.
But which places you at odds with RCs which interpret Rome as teaching Prots need conversion, while the feeling is mutual among evangelicals here.
Then perhaps Catholics can then toss the *The Bible doesn't say Mary was assumed, therefore we can teach that she did, after all Enoch and Elijah were so she must have been.* argument from silence.
True.
It takes a GROUP of them; and HighRanking at that; voting in the majority to use Silence.
And a few snippets; of course, as well.