On the Dividing Line as of late, Dr. James White has been going over Matt Slick’s debate/discussion with Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis. The following episodes are worth checking out of the topic of the bodily assumption of Mary:
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
(blog)
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
(blog)
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
(blog)
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
(blog)
I’m personally learning a lot from these shows. I would recommend them to you if you are either a)Â a Roman Catholic who is convinced that there is solid basis for the Marian Dogmas (such as the bodily assumption of Mary) or b) a protestant who is unaware of the teachings of the Roman Catholic church and how to counter them with solid, scriptural answers.
It is definitely interesting to hear James White stop the recording of Faith & Reason and discuss what is going on, what his response would have been (given his past experience debating Sungenis and other Catholics), etc. For example at one point (on the 7/22 show) Dr. White asked what conditions were necessary for sola scriptura to be in effect? Think simple here, there needs to be scriptura! The point is that we do not live in an age of inscriptureation (sp?). Roman Catholics try to press us into defending sola scriptura before the scriptures were complete. If we fall into that trap we are going to try to defend a difficult position.
Paul’s words (spoken orally) to the Thessalonians (1 Thess. 2:13) can not support the Marian Dogma of the bodily assumption because aside from the writings of the New Testament we do not possess any of the apostles’ teachings. It is many centuries before we have any written record of this being taught.
Odd that James White is back to debating Sungenis after these damning comments he made about him. Nothing has changed with Sungenis since the comments were made – these problems remain or have worsened over time. He’s even been driven to remove the “Catholic” moniker from his website.
James White:
“Sungenis’ reputation as a serious apologist was, for all intents and purposes, over at that point. Since then he has only marginalized himself even more by adopting a whole range of odd and downright eccentric positions, resulting in a wholesale abandonment on the part of mainstream Roman Catholics of his work.”
“given how minimalized CAI has become, and their need for “controversy” to keep themselves going, what benefit is there in aiding them to do so?”
“I decided it was best to focus on those who actually represent mainstream Roman Catholic views rather than a small fringe minority that has already shot its credibility in the head.”
“once you demonstrate you are willing to use anything, no matter how wild or insane it might be, as a billyclub against your imagined opponents, doesn’t it require you to do a little something to repair your own credibility? What has Sungenis done? He’s gone farther and farther down the road with his unique views”
“even Roman Catholic apologists I know agree that he should just be left alone to wander off into whatever form of religion is next to sample (his testimony story lists quite a range, from a follower of Harold Camping to a member of the International Churches of Christ–and that from being a Presbyterian, as I recall).”
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=443
Why is that odd? It is only evidence that they disagree. If they got along and agreed what point would there be in debating?
Also, the link you provided is over 5 years old. I’m sure a lot of stuff you and I aren’t aware of has happened since then.
Jesus said He would lead the Church in all truth…the scriptures teach that some people are in heaven bodily right now (Enoch, Elijah)…the scriptures leave the question of Mary’s bodily assumption open-ended…there is nothing about Mary’s bodily presence in heaven that would go against the Christian faith. So what’s the problem?
The problem is that the teaching is nowhere to be found in the Bible. You could make a list a mile long of things that are left “open-ended” in the Bible. The problem is when something that is “open-ended” becomes dogma.
It is not found in the Bible, but it is not CONTRARY (anti-biblical) to scripture. How does the assumption of Mary contradict scripture (meaning ANTI-biblical). The protestant tradition of a Wednesday night service/bible study is not found in scripture, but it is not CONTRARY to scripture. You must distinguish between “unbiblical (meaning not found in scripture) versus “anti-biblical” (meaning directly contrary to scripture).
“The protestant tradition of a Wednesday night service/bible study”
What are you talking about? There is no protestant tradition for Wed night bible studies.
Of course there is a distinction between what is not found in scripture and what is explicitly against scripture. The term “unbiblical” wouldn’t be what I would use to describe the former. The Roman Catholic Church’s position on Mary is contradicted by scripture (as praying to anyone other than God is idolatry) and is therefore antibiblical. Having a mid-week service (whether on Wednesday or any other day) is not commanded or forbidden and is therefore neither un- or anti-biblical.
No Glenn…think back…the very canon of scripture was at one time an open-ended question. The bible doesn’t supply us with a list of what books are in the bible, and even if it did, how would we know to trust that list? There was debate in the early Church over what counted as scripture and what didn’t. So there’s nothing wrong with the Church pronouncing on open-ended questions.
Yes, we could have a list a mile long of things the bible leaves open-ended. But not everything is quite as important as how God has chosen to honor his own mother in heaven! And why wouldn’t God give a body to Mary in heaven now? It makes perfect sense. Can you honestly imagine God saying…”thanks mom for giving me a body while I was on earth…but I’m just going to hold out on giving your body back to you until the final judgment…that okay mom?†I don’t think so. The bible says we must honor our father and mother, remember?
Lastly, the bible doesn’t say that each and every one of our dogmas has to be taught explicitly in the bible. It does say however, that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. That’s why we can trust that the 27 books in the NT are sacred scripture…the Church has officially proclaimed it.
Damien, did you listen to the mp3s i linked to? Sola Scriptura is a doctrine which takes effect once the Scriptura exists. You wouldn’t see a list of Books in Scripture while the Scriptures are still being inspired.
The church (which is spoken of as the pillar and foundation of truth) is not the Roman Catholic Church, it is the local church. You can’t establish the authority of ANY church by quoting scripture and turn and say that the Scripture is not trustworthy because the Church says so! Your reason for trusting the church’s stance on that church’s authority which is derived from Scripture. If scripture stands as a higher authority than the church (and justifies the church’s authority) then my appeal to the teaching of the Bible is a greater appeal than your appeal to the lesser authority of the church.
And then ask yourself: if the lesser authority (the church) calls something a dogma which the higher authority is silent on, why is that? Might it be because God spelled out the essentials of the faith in the higher authority and intended for all lower authorities to be firmly planted on it. The foundation comes first, then the building. If you add rooms to the building (the Marian dogmas) which extend further than the foundation (scripture) does then your house will have problems.
I gave the MP3s a listen.
You say that you “wouldn’t see†a list of scriptures in the scriptures while the scriptures are still being inspired. Well…let’s say there were 20 of the 27 books written. What’s to say that at that point, the 20th book, it would be completely out of the question for God to give an inspired list of at least 20 of the books? Or why can’t the 27th book written have a list of the 27 books? There is nothing stopping God from giving this list. Or why can’t each of the 27 books have some reference in them to their inspiration? Well, all of these things *could* have happened. But God didn’t do it that way, because even if the scriptures did witness to themselves, there would be no way to know for sure whether this list, or self-authentication is authentic. So you need an outside witness to verify its authenticity. And that’s where the Church comes in.
And please…how could “every local church†be the pillar and foundation of truth? If you buy that, then you have to say that all of the “local†Catholic Churches are the pillar and foundation of truth too. But I doubt you would say that in a hurry. You also have to wonder how all these local Churches can be the pillar and foundation of truth when they disagree on major doctrines such as infant baptism, sacraments the nature of Christ’s sacrifice etc.
And about the Church in Rome not having been founded by the time Paul wrote to Timothy. Yea, that might be true, but the pope doesn’t have to be in Rome to have the power of the keys.
The Marian dogmas do not extend further than the building. As I showed you, there is nothing wrong with the teaching about the assumption. There is nothing about the assumption that contradicts scripture and there is ample reason to believe why God would have allowed Mary to have a body in heaven right now.
The Prophet Elijah was taken up into heaven in a special way. Why not Mary?
As you read early church writings, you find all kinds of heresies. Concurrently, and more importantly, you find Christ’s holy church, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, diligently passing down the true faith. First, under the authority of apostles, next, bishops, presbyters, and deacons. This church was already known as the Catholic church, very early second century, which is easily verified through Ignatius’ writings.
Non-catholic early church historian J.N.D. Kelly wrote: “As regards “Catholic”…in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations…What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society: they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and invisible Church.” (“Early Christian Doctrines” pp 190-191)
Bottom line: The Church came before the Bible, not the other way around. If you want to stay Protestant, fine. At least find out where the church roots come from.