Replies

Becky said, "Scripture being silent on the point actually speaks very loudly about the importance of the point to God."

Oh, I see. So using that logic you'd also be forced to assert the the absence of any explicit statements in Scripture (versus implicit evidences, and there are *plenty* of implicit evidences for Mary's perpetual virginity in Scripture) regarding the Trinity as One God in Three consubstantial, co-equal Persons, the two natures of Christ, and the canon of Scripture itself must mean that those issues aren't important to God.

Please. Surely you can see that just because the Bible doesn't contain a single explicit statement regarding the doctrine of the Trinity or the Hypostatic Union of Christ (there are plenty of implicit evidences for theme, yes, but nothing explicit -- just as with Mary's post-partun virginity) that does not mean that they are not important to God.

And don't forget, Becky, that the Bible is absolutely silent on the extent of the canon of the NT (the OT too, for that matter). That revelation is handed down in the Church through Sacred Tradition, entirely outside the pages of Scripture. If you don't believe me, crack open your Bible and try to locate where in the inspired books there is a list of which books belong in the NT. Yet I'm certain you would argue that the Bible itself is "important" to God. Right?

Another example of biblical silence on an important issue: The NT nowhere condemns slavery. Galatians 3:28 mentions that there is no distinction in God's eyes betweem slave or free, but neither there nor elswhere in the NT is there a *teaching* delivered on the subject of slavery. In fact, in some sections (e.g. Philemon) Scripture gives the appearance of tolerating it (cf. 1 Peter 2:18).

So, the fact that something as important as the teaching that slavery is wrong isn't mentioned explicity in Scripture (much less condemned) doesn't ipso facto disqualify that issue as being important or true.

Ditto for Mary's perpetual virginity.

There are numerous other examples I could use to demonstrate the fuzzy thinking and unbiblical character of Becky's comment, but I hope these couple of examples will suffice to make the point that her dismissal of this doctrine, quoted at the top of this post, is simply not cogent.

Please. Surely you can see that just because the Bible doesn't contain a single explicit statement regarding the doctrine of the Trinity or the Hypostatic Union of Christ (there are plenty of implicit evidences for theme, yes, but nothing explicit -- just as with Mary's post-partun virginity) that does not mean that they are not important to God.

And don't forget, Becky, that the Bible is absolutely silent on the extent of the canon of the NT (the OT too, for that matter).

Paging DrSteveJ. You've taken me to task for similar statements about the Trinity. How about discussing this with Patrick?