Posted on 06/13/2012 2:59:02 PM PDT by Gamecock
In my experience with those who wrestle with conversion to Roman Catholicism—at least those who have professed faith in the gospel, the driving theological issue is authority. How can I be certain that what I believe is true? The gospel of free grace through the justification of sinners in Christ alone moves to the back seat. Instead of the horse, it becomes the cart. Adjustments are made in their understanding of the gospel after accepting Rome’s arguments against sola scriptura. I address these remarks to friends struggling with that issue.
Reformation Christians can agree with Augustine when he said that he would never have known the truth of God’s Word apart from the catholic church. As the minister of salvation, the church is the context and means through which we come to faith and are kept in the faith to the end. When Philip found an Ethiopian treasury secretary returning from Jerusalem reading Isaiah 53, he inquired, “Do you understand what you are reading?” “How can I,” the official replied, “unless someone guides me?” (Ac 8:30-31). Explaining the passage in the light of its fulfillment in Christ, Philip baptized the man who then “went on his way rejoicing” (v 39).
Philip did not have to be infallible; he only had to communicate with sufficient truth and clarity the infallible Word.
For many, this kind of certainty, based on a text, is not adequate. We have to know—really know—that what we believe is an infallible interpretation of an ultimate authority. The churches of the Reformation confess that even though some passages are more difficult to understand, the basic narratives, doctrines and commands of Scripture—especially the message of Christ as that unfolds from Genesis to Revelation—is so clearly evident that even the unlearned can grasp it.
For the Reformers, sola scriptura did not mean that the church and its official summaries of Scripture (creeds, confessions, catechisms, and decisions in wider assemblies) had no authority. Rather, it meant that their ministerial authority was dependent entirely on the magisterial authority of Scripture. Scripture is the master; the church is the minister.
The following theses summarize some of the issues that people should wrestle with before embracing a Roman Catholic perspective on authority.
1. The Reformers did not separate sola scriptura (by Scripture alone) from solo Christo (Christ alone), sola gratia (by grace alone), sola fide (through faith alone). As Herman Bavinck said, “Faith in Scripture rises or falls with faith in Christ.” Revealed from heaven, the gospel message itself (Christ as the central content of Scripture) is as much the basis for the Bible’s authority as the fact that it comes from the Father through the inspiration of the Spirit. Jesus Christ, raised on the third day, certified his divine authority. Furthermore, he credited the Old Testament writings as “scripture,” equating the words of the prophets with the very word of God himself and commissioned his apostles to speak authoritatively in his name. Their words are his words; those who receive them also receive the Son and the Father. So Scripture is the authoritative Word of God because it comes from the unerring Father, concerning the Son, in the power of the Spirit. Neither the authority of the Bible nor that of the church can stand apart from the truth of Christ as he is clothed in his gospel.2. Every covenant is contained in a canon (like a constitution). The biblical canon is the norm for the history of God’s saving purposes in Christ under the old and new covenants. The Old Testament canon closed with the end of the prophetic era, so that Jesus could mark a sharp division between Scripture and the traditions of the rabbis (Mk 7:8). The New Testament canon was closed at the end of the apostolic era, so that even during that era the Apostle Paul could warn the Corinthians against the “super-apostles” by urging, “Do not go beyond what is written” (1 Co 4:6). While the apostles were living, the churches were to “maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you” (1 Co 11:2), “…either by our spoken word or by our letter” (2 Th 2:15). There were indeed written and unwritten traditions in the apostolic church, but only those that eventually found their way by the Spirit’s guidance into the New Testament are now for us the apostolic canon. The apostles (extraordinary ministers) laid the foundation and after them workers (ordinary ministers) build on that foundation (1 Co 3:10). The apostles could appeal to their own eye-witness, direct, and immediate vocation given to them by Christ, while they instructed ordinary pastors (like Timothy) to deliver to others what they had received from the apostles. As Calvin noted, Rome and the Anabaptists were ironically similar in that they affirmed a continuing apostolic office. In this way, both in effect made God’s Word subordinate to the supposedly inspired prophets and teachers of today.
3. Just as the extraordinary office of prophets and apostles is qualitatively distinct from that of ordinary ministers, the constitution (Scripture) is qualitatively distinct from the Spirit-illumined but non-inspired courts (tradition) that interpret it. Thus, Scripture is magisterial in its authority, while the church’s tradition of interpretation is ministerial.
4. To accept these theses is to embrace sola scriptura, as the Reformation understood it.
5. This is precisely the view that we find in the church fathers. First, it is clear enough from their descriptions (e.g., the account in Eusebius) that the fathers did not create the canon but received and acknowledged it. (Even Peter acknowledged Paul’s writings as “Scripture” in 2 Peter 3:16, even though Paul clearly says in Galatians that he did not receive his gospel from or seek first the approval of any of the apostles, since he received it directly from Christ.) The criteria they followed indicates this: To be recognized as “Scripture,” a purported book had to be well-attested as coming from the apostolic circle. Those texts that already had the widest and earliest acceptance in public worship were easily recognized by the time Athanasius drew up the first list of all 27 NT books in 367. Before this even, many of these books were being quoted as normative scripture by Clement of Rome, Origin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and others. Of his list, Athanasius said that “holy Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us” (NPNF2, 4:23). Also in the 4th century Basil of Caesarea instructed, “Believe those things which are written; the things which are not written, seek not…It is a manifest defection from the faith, a proof of arrogance, either to reject anything of what is written, or to introduce anything that is not” (“On the Holy Spirit,” NPNF2, 8:41). Second, although the fathers also acknowledge tradition as a ministerially authoritative interpreter, they consistently yield ultimate obedience to Scripture. For example, Augustine explains that the Nicene Creed is binding because it summarizes the clear teaching of Scripture (On the Nicene Creed: A Sermon to the Catechumens, 1).
6. Roman Catholic scholars acknowledge that the early Christian community in Rome was not unified under a single head. (Paul, for example, reminded Timothy of the gift he was given when the presbytery laid its hands on him in his ordination: 1 Tim 4:14). In fact, in the Roman Catholic-Anglican dialogue the Vatican acknowledged that “the New Testament texts offer no sufficient basis for papal primacy” and that they contain “no explicit record of a transmission of Peter’s leadership” (“Authority in the Church” II, ARCIC, para 2, 6). So one has to accept papal authority exclusively on the basis of subsequent (post-apostolic) claims of the Roman bishop, without scriptural warrant. There is no historical succession from Peter to the bishops of Rome. First, as Jerome observed in the 4th-century, “Before attachment to persons in religion was begun at the instigation of the devil, the churches were governed by the common consultation of the elders,” and Jerome goes so far as to suggest that the introduction of bishops as a separate order above the presbyters was “more from custom than from the truth of an arrangement by the Lord” (cited in the Second Helvetic Confession, Ch 18). Interestingly, even the current pope acknowledges that presbyter and episcipos were used interchangeably in the New Testament and in the earliest churches (Called to Communion, 122-123).
7. Ancient Christian leaders of the East gave special honor to the bishop of Rome, but considered any claim of one bishop’s supremacy to be an act of schism. Even in the West such a privilege was rejected by Gregory the Great in the sixth century. He expressed offense at being addressed by a bishop as “universal pope”: “a word of proud address that I have forbidden….None of my predecessors ever wished to use this profane word ['universal']….But I say it confidently, because whoever calls himself ‘universal bishop’ or wishes to be so called, is in his self-exaltation Antichrist’s precursor, for in his swaggering he sets himself before the rest” (Gregory I, Letters; tr. NPNF 2 ser.XII. i. 75-76; ii. 170, 171, 179, 166, 169, 222, 225).
8. Nevertheless, building on the claims of Roman bishops Leo I and Galsius in the 5th century, later bishops of Rome did claim precisely this “proud address.” Declaring themselves Christ’s replacement on earth, they claimed sovereignty (“plenitude of power”) over the world “to govern the earthly and heavenly kingdoms.” At the Council of Reims (1049) the Latin Church claimed for the pope the title “pontifex universalis“—precisely the title identified by Gregory as identifying one who “in his self-exaltation [is] Antichrist’s precursor….” Is Pope Gregory the Great correct, or are his successors?
9. Papal pretensions contributed to the Great Schism in 1054, when the churches of the East formally excommunicated the Church of Rome, and the pope reacted in kind.
10. The Avignon Papacy (1309-76) relocated the throne to France and was followed by the Western Schism (1378-1417), with three rival popes excommunicating each other and their sees. No less than the current Pope wrote, before his enthronement, “For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form–the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution” (Principles of Catholic Theology, 196).
11. Medieval debates erupted over whether Scripture, popes or councils had the final say. Great theologians like Duns Scotus and Pierre D’Ailly favored sola scriptura. Papalists argued that councils had often erred and contradicted themselves, so you have to have a single voice to arbitrate the infallible truth. Conciliarists had no trouble pointing out historical examples of popes contradicting each other, leading various schisms, and not even troubling to keep their unbelief and reckless immorality private. Only at the Council of Trent was the papalist party officially affirmed in this dispute.
12. Papal claims were only strengthened in reaction to the Reformation, all the way to the promulgation of papal infallibility at the First Vatican Council in 1870. At that Council, Pope Pius IX could even respond to modern challenges to his authority by declaring, “I am tradition.”
13. Though inspired by God, Scripture cannot be sufficient. It is a dark, obscure, and mysterious book (rendered more so by Rome’s allegorizing exegesis). An infallible canon needs an infallible interpreter. This has been Rome’s argument. The insufficiency of Scripture rests on its lack of clarity. True it is that the Bible is a collection of texts spread across many centuries, brimming with a variety of histories, poetry, doctrines, apocalyptic, and laws. However, wherever it has been translated in the vernacular and disseminated widely, barely literate people have been able to understand its central message. Contrast this with the libraries full of decreetals and encyclicals, councilor decisions and counter-decisions, bulls and promulgations. Any student of church history recognizes that in this case the teacher is often far more obscure than the text. It’s no wonder that Rome defines faith as fides implicita: taking the church’s word for it. For Rome, faith is not trust in Jesus Christ according to the gospel, but yielding assent and obedience unreservedly simply to everything the church teaches as necessary to salvation. There are many hazards associated with embracing an infallible text without an infallible interpreter. However, the alternative is not greater certainty and clarity about the subject matter, but a sacrifice of the intellect and an abandonment of one’s personal responsibility for one’s commitments to the decisions and acts of others.
14. Those of us who remain Reformed must examine the Scriptures and the relevant arguments before concluding that Rome’s claims are not justified and its teaching is at variance with crucial biblical doctrines. A Protestant friend in the midst of being swayed by Rome’s arguments exclaims, “That’s exactly why I can’t be a Protestant anymore. Without an infallible magisterium everyone believes whatever he chooses.” At this point, it’s important to distinguish between a radical individualism (believing whatever one chooses) and a personal commitment in view of one’s ultimate authority. My friend may be under the illusion that his or her decision is different from that, but it’s not. In the very act of making the decision to transfer ultimate authority from Scripture to the magisterium, he or she is weighing various biblical passages and theological arguments. The goal (shifting the burden of responsibility from oneself to the church) is contradicted by the method. At this point, one cannot simply surrender to a Reformed church or a Roman church; they must make a decision after careful personal study. We’re both in the same shoes.
15. Most crucially, Rome’s ambitious claims are tested by its faithfulness to the gospel. If an apostle could pronounce his anathema on anyone—including himself or an angel from heaven—who taught a gospel different from the one he brought to them (Gal 1:8-9), then surely any minister or church body after the apostles is under that threat. First, Paul was not assuming that the true church is beyond the possibility of error. Second, he placed himself under the authority of that Word. Just read the condemnations from the Council of Trent below. Do they square with the clear and obvious teaching of Scripture? If they do not, then the choice to be made is between the infallible writings of the apostles and those after the apostles and since who claim to be the church’s infallible teachers.
As I have pointed out in previous posts, the frustration with the state of contemporary Protestantism is understandable. I feel it every day. Yet those who imagine that they will escape the struggle between the “already” and the “not yet,” the certainty of a promise and the certainty of possession, the infallibility of God’s Word and the fallibility of its appointed teachers, are bound to be disappointed wherever they land. As Calvin counseled on the matter, Scripture alone is sufficient; “better to limp along this path than to dash with all speed outside it.”
1 Corinthians 35-56
37 And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain.
38 But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. 39 For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish.
45 Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. 47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.
“Death is swallowed up in victory.” 55 “O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?”
56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
I NEVER said that Moses didn’t die. You are arguing against a delusion you have created.
So now you're saying Moses DID die? Right here you contradict yourself.
Well, which one was it? Was he assumed INSTEAD of dying or did he die as Scripture tells us?
Likewise.
When God first revealed that to me it was quite the experience.
But once I repented of that, all the tendency I had to worry just vanished. I no longer feel the NEED to be in control all the time. Stress levels have plummeted.
As an aside, it is amazing to me how the RCC defends so vociferously the idea that it is the SAME OLD BODY made new in the case of each individual, but absolutely will not extend the very same to the earth and all of creation.
As to the argument here, it is a distinction without a difference - Even if it is the same old body, with each individual atom lovingly reconstructed, there is enough evidence (as already given) that the changes included in that reconstruction are broad enough to proclaim it 'new' as well, in the sense of re-modeling being something made new. I am willing to cede the point on that basis.
But in saying that, I would also point out that the example given, that Jesus was resurrected with the scars of His crucifixion still intact, is not the same image that we see in the Revelation of Jesus Christ, wherein His GLORIFIED self is somewhat grander than human (feet like brass, eyes like fire, and etc)... And if we are to be like Him (depending of course on how far 'like Him' is to be taken), then the 'new' is really a BIG 'new'.
Again, the effect and constitution of this 'new' body, the change we shall experience, IS NOT KNOWN. WE DON"T KNOW WHAT THAT IS... neither should we presume to know, beyond the knowledge that it is desirable to reach that change.
There is the point precisely: I am trying not to make assumptions, and those that I do entertain are freely admitted as such... That is a far cry from taking those assumptions dogmatically.
>> “Jesus rose from the dead and He had the same body He had when He died” <<
.
Absolutely false!
He had a body that was an image of his bioplogical body, but it was no longer a biological body.
It was a body that could travel through the stone walls of buildings. It was a body that could travel to the realm of God the father. Neither of those things were possible with a flesh and blood body.
Frankly, your response is so self-contradictory as to be impossible to respond to in a meaningful way.
What seems to be tripping people up is that the body LOOKS the same, which is TOTALLY irrelevant.
The body has to be intrinsically different to be glorified like Jesus' body was, one that could appear and disappear in and out of our space/time continuum, one which could pass through walls and closed doors.
It makes not one iota of difference if it looks the same. It CAN'T be the same, not intrinsically.
I agree.
It makes not one iota of difference if it looks the same. It CAN'T be the same, not intrinsically.
Again, TRUE. The point is lost upon me as to why it is important that the very same physical substance (atom-by-atom reconstruction) must be used, as our FRiend seems to require - Whether that or not, the change necessary to 'appear and disappear in and out of our space/time continuum, [and] pass through walls and closed doors' seems significant enough to easily justify the term 'new'. The form-factor is certainly different, regardless of the parts list, and where or how the parts are obtained.
It does not matter one whit to me what it is made of, or how it might be accomplished - All of that is far beyond my ken. I will be content to be utterly amazed at the time.
My point is that the argument is basically centered around the definition of the word 'new' and what that means (brandy spankin' or remodeled)... and is really a thing without any distinction. Whether new or remodeled, any remodeling must needfully be great enough to be considered as 'new' anyway:
I recently bought a new place, which I got a screaming deal on, because it was so decrepit. By the time I got done remodeling, the only things that were saved were the basic structure (the framing, which also got major repairs), the foundation, and the roofing... All new plumbing, all new electric, new siding, sheet-rock, floors, flooring, paint, int & ext trim, appliances, and etc. ad-infinitum...
One could argue that it is the same old house. But one could also argue that it is new, as what was old in it is so largely replaced and reconfigured as to make any mention of the 'old' pretty irrelevant. But which ever way you'd like to look at it, the house is still the same - the look and layout have not changed.
And had I torn it down and rebuilt it wholly new, very little would be any different from what it is now
That is the point - I think the scope of remodeling makes any argument over whether new or remodeled pretty much an irrelevant thing.
Good illustration.
It reminds me of something I ran across some years ago. Romans 12:2 admonishes us to that kind of renewal of our minds, the term *renew* carries with it the idea of renovation. IOW, renovate your mind. It's still basically the same mind, just like the house has the same basic structure, but new in basically every other respect.
The simple fact that this sin corrupted body cannot physically survive outside some very narrow parameters, it simply cannot be the same TYPE of body, even if it looks the same.
Plus when the heavens and earth melt away with a fervent heat, we'd sunk if we had these bodies.
The theme of renewal runs very deep in the Bible... Even the 'New Covenant' can be read to mean 'renew' in the same way... renovate. Causes one to ponder... What YHWH has wanted out of Man, and what He plans do do with Man has always been the same... It may be new to us, or presented in a different fashion, but the similarities abound.
Plus when the heavens and earth melt away with a fervent heat, we'd sunk if we had these bodies.
Heh. There's another of those conundrums... How can earth be eternal, as the Old Covenant declares, and still melt with fervent heat... Is that another one of those 'new by renewing' things? But then, I digress. : D
It will be a glorified physical body of flesh and bones, (LK. 24:9) termed a “spiritual body” (1Cor. 15:44) like what the Lord’s, who was raised bodily but with a body that could pass thru locked doors, yet eat food (where did the food go?).
“Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. “ (1 John 3:2)
But one point is that all the texts which actually refer to the postmortem location or experience of the elect is with the Lord, which is where even the Corinthian believers would have gone had the resurrection occurred.
“For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words. “ (1 Thessalonians 4:16-18)
“We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. “ (2 Corinthians 5:8)
“For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: “ (Philippians 1:23)
“And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise. “ (Luke 23:42-43)
“And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. “ (Acts 7:59)
“Thou wilt shew me the path of life: in thy presence is fulness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore. “ (Psalms 16:11)
And when the Lord returns is when believers will be judged for their service in the Lord, regarding how they built His church, which is what 1Cor. 3 is about, but not for salvation, and all true believers shall be with the Lord upon death. See http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Bible/1Cor._3.html#Purgatory
The Mary of the Scriptures (not the one often preached in Rome) will be among them, and if she preceded the believers, and is already crowned, then the Scripture know nothing of it, and it cannot be made a doctrine, nor should it be taught. Simply because it could happen, and Scripture does not unequivocally disallow it does not warrant it being taught.
It is important here to distinguish between ascension and assumption. Ascension, as that of Jesus, denotes that He went to heaven under His own power. Assumption, as that of Mary, denotes that she was taken up not having the power to ascend by her own doing.
Catholic apologist Karl Keating states, “Catholic commentators, not to mention the Popes, have agreed that Mary died…The Church has never formally defined whether she died or not.”1
This is interesting in that a dogma which might be slightly implied or nonexistent in Scripture is defined as being divine truth by the Catholic Church and yet they still leave the issue unclear and leave plenty of room for speculation and or conflict (Also see the essay Eternally a Virgin?). The Holy Bible with the Confraternity Text-Papal Edition—A Practical Dictionary of Biblical and General Catholic Information:
Assumption of the Blessed Virgin. 1. The privilege of Mary by which, at the end of her earthly life, she was assumed into heaven, where she now lives on, glorified in both body and soul. This doctrine was solemnly defined by Pope Pius XII on November 1, 1950. In defining the assumption, Pope Pius XII avoided settling a theological dispute connected with the doctrine. Did Mary die?
The assumption took place at the end of her earthly life; but her earthly life could have been ended by death or by having been assumed into heaven without dying. The more common opinion is that Mary did die. The assumption, therefore, would be an anticipated resurrection. But since the definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in 1854 and especially since the definition of the assumption, a growing number of theologians have taught that she did not die but was translated body and soul into heaven without ever having died. Catholics are free to hold either opinion.
Note that the assumption of Mary was not an official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church until one thousand nine hundred fifty years after Mary lived.
New American Bible Fireside Family Edition—Encyclopedic Dictionary and Biblical Reference Guide, “her assumption has been a common Catholic belief for at least 1500 years, it was not declared as an article of the faith until 1950…The Feast of the Assumption is celebrated as a Holy Day of Obligation.”
If Roman Catholic tradition comes from the Apostles why was this not a common Catholic belief for millennia? Moreover, why was it not official until 1950 AD? These questions are very important because the feast of the Assumption is a Holy Day of Obligation, which the Catholic NAB Encyclopedic Dictionary defines as, “Days on which Catholics are obligated under pain of mortal sin to attend Mass and to abstain from all unnecessary servile work.” Every Sunday in the year as well as certain feast days are designated as such.
The NAB Encyclopedic Dictionary defines mortal sin as, “A most serious offense against God, and it is called mortal because it destroys one’s relationship of friendship with God. Through mortal sin one condemns self to separation from God which is called damnation.”
Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J. explains the thought process behind the Assumption dogma, “Some argued from her virginity, that as her body was preserved in spotless chastity, it should not be subject to natural dissolution after death. But the most cogent reason, later on adopted by Pius XII, was the participation by Christ’s mother in his redemption of the world.”9
Karl Keating writes, “[Pope] Pius XII said the Assumption is really a consequence of the Immaculate Conception.”10
Fr. Oscar Lukefahr explains that the dogma of the assumption of Mary in heaven “was defined in 1950 by Pope Pius XII, not on his own initiative but in answer to millions of petitions from all over the world…This doctrine is a sign of hope because it point the way to heaven for us, who are, like Mary, members of the Church.”11
Alan Schreck explains that the doctrine of the Assumption was “defined as a Catholic belief by an ‘infallible’ statement of Pope Pius XII in 1950 in response to the faith of millions of Catholics who desired that the Pope speak out officially about the truth of this belief. In the hundred years before Pope Pius’ declaration, the popes had received petitions from 113 cardinals, 250 bishops, 32,000 priests and religious brothers, 50,000 religious women, and 8 million lay people, all requesting that the Assumption be recognized officially as a Catholic teaching. Apparently, the pope discerned that the Holy Spirit was speaking through the people of God on this matter.”12
Anthony Wilhelm states, “a tomb of Mary was venerated, but there were no relics of her body, unlike the apostles and other early Christian heroes; when Christian writers and the liturgy became concerned with Mary’s assumption in the 6th and 7th centuries, it was accepted throughout the Church.”13
Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J. points out, “The Eastern Emperor Mauritius (582-602) introduced the feast of the Koimesis (Falling Asleep) of the Virgin and ordered its celebration annually…In the West, the earliest extant testimony is the statement of Gregory of Tours (d. 596), that ‘The Lord commanded the holy body [of Mary after her death] to be borne on a cloud to Paradise, where, reunited to its soul… However, the most extensive witness comes from St. Andrew of Crete (d. 720), St. Germanus, patriarch of Byzantium (733), and especially St. John Damascene (d. after 754)…the faith of the people in the doctrine must have been very strong and widespread by the middle of the eighth century.”
Here we see that a half of a millennia pass before this dogma came to be taught, even unofficially. Also, we find that the real reason for the proclamation of the dogma of the Assumption is not divine revelation but due to the accumulation of human opinion. The Fatima Crusader stated, “According to Pope Pius XII it was through the petitions of the faithful that the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary was solemnly and infallibly defined as a dogma of the Catholic Faith.”15
Jesus was sinless throughout His whole life and He would have never died and so it is true that He chose to die.16 According to Catholic dogma we do not know if Mary died or not (why do we not know even when the Holy Spirit inspired Pope infallibly spoke out on the subject?), assuming that Mary did die we are told that it was so that she could be in union with Jesus. This does not really answer why she died, after all are we to believe that neither Enoch nor Elijah are with Jesus because they did not die?17
Next we are told that Jesus did not have to die, he could have just willed redemption. We could what if the Bible to death but that is not reality; reality is what actually occurred. Paul speaks very clearly on this subject, “And for this cause he is the mediator of the new covenant, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth” (Hebrews 9:15-17).
Since when is divinely inspired truth voted on by the popular consensus and peer pressure?
In the Bible the last we know of Mary is that, along with some other Apostles, she received the gift of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, after that we know nothing of her life or death. However, there is a sure way to get accurate information regarding this, we can ask her once we get to heaven.
This belief is not an article of faith nevertheless Pope Benedict XIV declared it to be probable opinion, the denial of which would be impious and blasphemous.
If the Assumption of Mary gives hope to the believers, then what hope did believers have before she died in 48 AD [if she died]? They had the authentic hope from the source of true hope, the Ascension of Jesus Christ, which occurred a decade and a half before Mary’s assumed Assumption. Regarding the Assumption, Roman Catholic Theologian Karl Rahner states, “at best it can only be considered an evidence of theological speculation about Mary, which has been given the form of an ostensibly historical account….Otherwise, there is nothing of any historical value in such apocryphal works.”18
Yet, A Catholic Dictionary; The Catholic Encyclopaedic Dictionary states, “This belief is not an article of faith; nevertheless Pope Benedict XIV declared it to be probable opinion, the denial of which would be impious and blasphemous.”
Personally, the Assumption of Mary as well as the Immaculate Conception of Mary can be held by Roman Catholics all they want. There are many other doctrines with which I also disagree. My objection is really about the Roman Catholic Church - who claims to be the "foundation and buttress of the truth" - deciding what is or is not an essential doctrine of the Christian faith. When such essential tenets of the faith are proclaimed as necessary for salvation, but which have NO scriptural warrant, then the Roman Catholic Church is placing itself ABOVE the Holy Scriptures and asserts dominance over the very words of Almighty God. THAT is what I refuse to accept. The Roman Catholic Church has, by this as well as other issues, lost any right to claim superiority over all Christians as far as I am concerned. Though I can leave it to individuals to decide for themselves what they want to believe about the mother of Jesus Christ, I will continue to uphold the truths taught in Scripture by which we must be saved.
You aren't alone in this! I think it is simply human nature to constantly ask "Why?". We start very early doing so. I remember as a little kid thinking, how high is the sky? How far does it go? What's after that? A wall? How thick is the wall? What's after that? I finally had to quit thinking about that! Though God HAS given us answers to many of the deepest, essential questions we can have, He has, in His wisdom, not explained everything. Part of the reason is just obvious - we can't possibly understand everything. Our finite minds cannot comprehend the infinite. Another reason is, even if we COULD understand certain things, we MUST have the idea of learning more total knowledge as an impetus to cause us to continue to seek, continue to ask, continue to search. It's part of the "dance" as Quix would say.
Jesus had a conversation with his disciples about deeper things and He answered their requests for Him to tell them everything with, "I have spoken to you of earthly things and you believed not, how shall you believe if I tell you of heavenly things?" (John 3:12) Yep, He knows us alright! Some things it is just fun to imagine about or conjecture over and some things we have to accept on faith. And like you said, we don't HAVE to know it all. It can be a lifelong challenge just to grasp what IS possible to know.
I would think little babies that died wouldn't STILL be infants in their glorified bodies, would they? We can be pretty confident that those who were born disfigured or missing limbs will have bodies that are whole in heaven. Disintegrated, nothing but dust, bodies WILL be changed and be reconstituted AS something we cannot imagine, but WILL recognize. I wonder how Peter knew it was Moses and Elijah standing there with Jesus? They didn't have a Polaroid. Nobody will be “ugly” or “homely” there, I don't believe. So it is only logical that, whatever this glorified body is, it WILL be new, different, changed and built for eternity. Eye has not seen, nor ear heard nor entered into the heart of man what wonderful things God has prepared for those that love Him.
Thanks. Good to hear from you!
Many thanks for the acknowledgement; you have made very good use of my small efforts. It is in the hope of claiming all men for Christ that we labour in His name...
The Transitus assumption of Mary was first officially rejected as heretical. In his decree, Decretum de Libris Canonicis Ecclesiasticis et Apocrypha, which was later affirmed by Pope Hormisdas, Gelasius lists the Transitus teaching by the following title: Liber qui apellatur Transitus, id est Assumptio Sanctae Mariae under the following condemnation: 'These and writings similar to these, which....all the heresiarchs and their disciples, or the schismatics have taught or written....we confess have not only been rejected but also banished from the whole Roman and Apostolic Church and with their authors and followers of their authors have been condemned forever under the indissoluble bond of anathema' (St. Gelasius I, Epistle 42; taken from Henry Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma [London: Herder, 1954], 69-70). Cf. Migne P.L., vol. 59, col. 162, 164.
It’s not difficult to follow and determine why they needed to have Mary assumed into heaven. The whole “queen of heaven” concept demanded that she somehow had to get to heaven. We read in Acts 19 that they were already dealing with the locals in Ephesus where the temple to Diana was and somehow needed to placate the locals and bring them “into the fold” so to speak. It’s interesting to note that the assumption of Mary started about the same time as the Council of Ephesus where the “queen of heaven” concept really began to creep into the “church”.
No, I have missed nothing.
And no, you have answered nothing, but I didn’t really expect anything other than what I got.
****37 And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain.*****
What you sow, the body that dies is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel.......Let us consider that example.....
A kernel of wheat, or corn or whatever when sown, grows into the plant of wheat or corn. A kernel of wheat does not grow into a rose bush and a kernel of corn does not grow into an oak tree.
No, all that the wheat needs to grow into a stalk of wheat is within that kernel and that kernel must die so that the stalk of wheat can grow from it.
All that the corn needs to grow into a stalk of corn is within that kernel which must die so that the stalk of corn can grow from it.
It is the same with us. Our souls and our bodies are not separate entities which just happen to come together. Souls do not pre-exist, numbered so that when a body is created, BOOM the next soul in line goes to that body.
No, at the moment of our conception, God creates our soul. And before that body was created, God knew us and knew our soul and our body and the two are together at God’s design and in accordance with His holy will.
Our bodies are not an accident and not just refuse to be used in this life and discarded. Jesus Incarnated was fully human, with a fully human body, a body created for Him by His Father in heaven, in exactly the same way He created ours for us.
Jesus didn’t just show up in the next available body and He didn’t just grab another in which to rise up and ascend into heaven.
He came in the body and in the time chosen by His Father, and so have we. And our bodies in all their imperfections are perfect to Him, and that is why it is the same body which He will raise on the Last Day. And when He does, that same body will be glorified.
I don’t claim to know what that is, I can only look at Scripture and see how Jesus’ body was glorified and trust in the promise that we will be like Him.
You post again the same Scripture as if I haven’t read it or can’t possibly know what it means since I don’t agree with your understanding of it. Nothing could be further from reality.
But, this conversation goes to the heart of why there is a need for an infallible authority.
****Moses was assumed instead of dying as Scripture
I NEVER said that Moses didn’t die. You are arguing against a delusion you have created.
So now you’re saying Moses DID die? Right here you contradict yourself.
Well, which one was it? Was he assumed INSTEAD of dying or did he die as Scripture tells us?*****
I have not contradicted myself, because I NEVER claimed that Moses didn’t die.
You stated that once and I called you on it and now you make it again without proof.
Link to the post where I said that Moses didn’t die.
You can’t. Because I haven’t, didn’t, wouldn’t.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.