James White calls Called to Communion to the carpet on the Assumption of Mary

[Lochias]

The burden of proof lies on the RCC to show the assumption of Mary. It has to make a positive case for it’s position. It is a very bad thing when it tries to shift the burden of proof to another. Basically using the universal negavative fallacy for an argument. We lack evidence in the most early church fathers on the assumption of Mary. If this doctrine was held we would find this in the most early writings yet we do not. I saw no proof of it.

No, sir. We provide the answers, and people can take them or leave them as they see fit. What you may or may not want to believe doesn’t change history or fact, explicit or implied.

We dont have the remains of Peter and Paul either. Mary is equally positionally with all other Christians in the eyes of God. Mary like all Christians have the same spiritual blessings as Paul taught in Eph. 1:3. All Christians are viewed positionally equally in the eyes of God. Mary has no special blessings that other believers do not have. Mary merely gave birth to the Lord Jesus Christ and was therefore the GodBearer. That is what makes her blessed.

What you believe and what the Catholic Church believes are two different things. We’ve got 2000+ years of history to back us up. What do you have? You have no grounds to stand and tell us what we ought to believe. Conversation is one thing, but coming into a Catholic forum and sternly telling how wrong we are is laughable.

I saw it and looked puzzled at the total lack of biblical and historical evidence in it. Makes me wonder how in the world someone can believe the bad arguments that it used.

Not my fault that you’re trying to see with your eyes closed. You’ve got the Catholic Answer…whatever you choose to do with it is up to you.

 

[Nicea325]

It only proves it happend to only those individuals. It provides no proof of it happening to the virgin Mary. This is like me claiming I have a cell phone and only showing other people with cell phones in their hands as proof of me having a cell phone. Hope you see what I am saying.

His remains are buried. He physically died as Joshua 1:1 tells us. The death is Moses is specifically recorded for us in Deu 34. God made sure no know where Moses was buried specifically. Just because his body was never found does not mean that he was physically resurrected and taken to heaven. We are never told of this at all. Thus is provides no proof for the assumption of Mary either.

I hold that Moses went to heaven in his spirit when he died. We have no record at all of him being resurrected and taken to heaven in his body. We do have the specific record of Elijah the Prophet being taken physically to heaven while alive. Again this only proves his own individual experience and not that of the virgin Mary. His experience is only a type of what shall happen to living Christians at the time of Jesus coming for His church as taught in 1 Thes 4:13-18. This text shows that individuals all Christians which would include the virgin Mary will be taken to heaven at the same time with all other Christians physically.

We dont know where her grave is at nor do we need to know. We likewise dont know where the grave of Adam and Eve are and yet you dont claim that they were taken physically to heaven either. Please use reasonable logic here.

You mean claimed house. We dont know for sure one way or the other. This is speculation really and is not proof .

Yeah these same men are not discussing a NT canon either-are they?

And why is it Protestants also forget the canon of scripture was not discussed in great depth by many church fathers either…so do not blame Catholics when we ask Protestants the same set of questions. And you are DEAD WRONG by stating we have placed our leaders above the Scriptures.On the contrary, Protestants are historically the ones who placed themselves above the scriptures by creating thousands of denominations,whether you care to admit it or not.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Nicea325]

The burden of proof lies on the RCC to show the assumption of Mary. It has to make a positive case for it’s position. It is a very bad thing when it tries to shift the burden of proof to another. Basically using the universal negavative fallacy for an argument. We lack evidence in the most early church fathers on the assumption of Mary. If this doctrine was held we would find this in the most early writings yet we do not. I saw no proof of it.

We dont have the remains of Peter and Paul either. Mary is equally positionally with all other Christians in the eyes of God. Mary like all Christians have the same spiritual blessings as Paul taught in Eph. 1:3. All Christians are viewed positionally equally in the eyes of God. Mary has no special blessings that other believers do not have. Mary merely gave birth to the Lord Jesus Christ and was therefore the GodBearer. That is what makes her blessed.

I saw it and looked puzzled at the total lack of biblical and historical evidence in it. Makes me wonder how in the world someone can believe the bad arguments that it used.

Lack of biblical evidence? Care to show us the Biblical evidence for wedding rings?

 

[Chafer_DTS]

What you believe and what the Catholic Church believes are two different things.

What I believe is true catholic teaching. What is specifically rejected is the distinctive doctrines of Roman Catholicism. Too bad you have nothing in the Creeds to claim I believe in something different. Notice in none of the Creeds we dont have the distinctive doctrine of modern Roman Catholicism. You have nothing in the Creeds that can be used as evidence againist me .

We’ve got 2000+ years of history to back us up.

Actually you do not have 2000 years. The RCC formed it’s own sect in 1054ad when it split with Eastern Orthodox in the Great Schism . As that stands Eastern Orthodox predates Roman Catholicism. The Church started in Jerusalm in Asian Minor and not Italy in Rome. I see nothing of the church of Rome in Acts 2.

What do you have?

I have the Lord Jesus Christ as I included in the Body of Christ stated in Eph. 1:3-5 and my own vital union with Jesus all important to all Christians in Col. 2:10 and the continuity of the doctrines of the apostles as revealed to us in Scripture and in the creeds of the church such as the Apostle’s Creed.

You have no grounds to stand and tell us what we ought to believe.

Actually I do as Jude 3 outlines . We are to believe what Scripture teaches us. There is nothing wrong with that. Remember our faith is to be in Jesus Christ and not the church itself. You have no idea what I believe or what I am and yet you are coming off in a very demeaning manner to me. Do you look down at all those who reject RCC distinctive beliefs as dogs or something ?

Conversation is one thing, but coming into a Catholic forum and sternly telling how wrong we are is laughable.

I thought I was welcomed to this forum. I am having a conversation. I am not to be talked down to by you or anyone here. That is not right at all. You have NO idea about me or my religious back ground yet you want to make assumptions over me. I said nothing wrong in my post here. Yet you are acting like I did. I do not find the errors of distinctive doctrines of Roman Catholicism that are in error to be a funny manner at all. There is big difference between what my post were and what you claim they are.

Not my fault that you’re trying to see with your eyes closed. You’ve got the Catholic Answer…whatever you choose to do with it is up to you.

My eyes were wide open with Scripture and the reality of church history. If what I got was the " Roman Catholic Answer " than Roman Catholicism is in very bad shape. I honestly felt it was a very poor answer and that is was flawed. It lacked biblical and historical proof. All that was there was claims being made without evidence. Roman Catholicism is not being singled out for this . Others do that as well sometimes. I reject it’s claims because it was without foundation. I was being objectively reasonable on this.

 

[Chafer_DTS]

Lack of biblical evidence? Care to show us the Biblical evidence for wedding rings?

Wedding rings is a religious custom and not a doctrinal belief whereas the assumption of Mary is claimed as a dogmatic doctrine of the Roman Church. To equate those 2 as on the same level is a bad idea and logically flawed. Last time I checked I thought that "Sacred Scripture " was one part of the rule of faith for the Roman Church ??? Did you kick out Scripture as part of the rule of faith ? I was under the impression that the rule of faith for the Roman Church was Scripture and Tradition . Did this change ?

 

[Arizona_Samson]

Lack of biblical evidence? Care to show us the Biblical evidence for wedding rings?

Non sequitur unless your denomination has also infallibly declared the wearing of wedding rings must be believed *De Fide *as a matter of one’s salvation.

 

[Nicea325]

Wedding rings is a religious custom and not a doctrinal belief whereas the assumption of Mary is claimed as a dogmatic doctrine of the Roman Church. To equate those 2 as on the same level is a bad idea and logically flawed. Last time I checked I thought that "Sacred Scripture " was one part of the rule of faith for the Roman Church ??? Did you kick out Scripture as part of the rule of faith ? I was under the impression that the rule of faith for the Roman Church was Scripture and Tradition . Did this change ?

Does not matter,nonetheless, a Christian tradition,thus show me where it is mentioned?

 

[Nicea325]

Non sequitur unless your denomination has also infallibly declared wedding rings must be believed *De Fide *as a matter of one’s salvation.

Non sequitur? According to who? You? Catholicism is not denomination. Show me one CC document declaring weddings must be believed? Believed in what aspect?

 

[Nicea325]

What I believe is true catholic teaching. What is specifically rejected is the distinctive doctrines of Roman Catholicism. Too bad you have nothing in the Creeds to claim I believe in something different. Notice in none of the Creeds we dont have the distinctive doctrine of modern Roman Catholicism. You have nothing in the Creeds that can be used as evidence againist me .

Actually you do not have 2000 years. The RCC formed it’s own sect in 1054ad when it split with Eastern Orthodox in the Great Schism . As that stands Eastern Orthodox predates Roman Catholicism. The Church started in Jerusalm in Asian Minor and not Italy in Rome. I see nothing of the church of Rome in Acts 2.

I have the Lord Jesus Christ as I included in the Body of Christ stated in Eph. 1:3-5 and my own vital union with Jesus all important to all Christians in Col. 2:10 and the continuity of the doctrines of the apostles as revealed to us in Scripture and in the creeds of the church such as the Apostle’s Creed.

Actually I do as Jude 3 outlines . We are to believe what Scripture teaches us. There is nothing wrong with that. Remember our faith is to be in Jesus Christ and not the church itself. You have no idea what I believe or what I am and yet you are coming off in a very demeaning manner to me. Do you look down at all those who reject RCC distinctive beliefs as dogs or something ?

I thought I was welcomed to this forum. I am having a conversation. I am not to be talked down to by you or anyone here. That is not right at all. You have NO idea about me or my religious back ground yet you want to make assumptions over me. I said nothing wrong in my post here. Yet you are acting like I did. I do not find the errors of distinctive doctrines of Roman Catholicism that are in error to be a funny manner at all. There is big difference between what my post were and what you claim they are.

My eyes were wide open with Scripture and the reality of church history. If what I got was the " Roman Catholic Answer " than Roman Catholicism is in very bad shape. I honestly felt it was a very poor answer and that is was flawed. It lacked biblical and historical proof. All that was there was claims being made without evidence. Roman Catholicism is not being singled out for this . Others do that as well sometimes. I reject it’s claims because it was without foundation. I was being objectively reasonable on this.

Where is the Biblical evidence supporting the foudation of thousands of man-made denominations?

 

[Chafer_DTS]

Yeah these same men are not discussing a NT canon either-are they?

They did cite parts of it. Jerome and others did so . I agree with Jerome’s OT Canon listing .

And why is it Protestants also forget the canon of scripture was not discussed in great depth by many church fathers either…so do not blame Catholics when we ask Protestants the same set of questions.

Remember the Roman Church claims the universal consent of the church fathers as it’s basis whereas Protestants do not. I fault the Roman Church with it’s double standards and illogical arguments for it’s distinctive pet dogmas that lack any biblical and historical basis.

And you are DEAD WRONG by stating we have placed our leaders above the Scriptures.

Then why invent doctrines to be dogmatically held that are not taught in Scripture ? This has been a serious problem for the Roman Church for a very long time.

On the contrary, Protestants are historically the ones who placed themselves above the scriptures by creating thousands of denominations,whether you care to admit it or not.

I guess you never heard of the sin of schism. The Roman Church itself is guilty of the sin of schism in it’s split from Eastern Orthodox in 1054ad and it’s schism with Protestants in the 1500’s. The Roman Church itself is one of many denominations. Why complain of different denominations when the RCC is itself one and had problems of schism in it’s history ?

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Charity please

 

[Arizona_Samson]

the assumption of Mary was the first dogma about Mary I believed in on my Journey in the Catholic faith. The first Christians always taught it,God Bless

Not only did the first Christians not teach the assumption of Mary they never heard of such a thing as the teaching didn’t begin to infiltrate the church until over *five centuries *after Mary’s death.

God Bless you also, robwar.

 

[Chafer_DTS]

Where is the Biblical evidence supporting the foudation of thousands of man-made denominations?

Schism happened in the early church. Did you miss reading 1 Cor 1:10-17 ? Oddly the Roman Church fell in to sin too by saying " I am of Peter " . Since the Roman Church says " I am of Peter " it itself is one of many man made denominations. I am againist schism so your argument has no basis or application to me.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Yeah these same men are not discussing a NT canon either-are they?

They did cite parts of it. Jerome and others did so . I agree with Jerome’s OT Canon listing .

I was not referring to Jerome,but men like Clement,Polycarp,Igantius,etc.

Quote:
And why is it Protestants also forget the canon of scripture was not discussed in great depth by many church fathers either…so do not blame Catholics when we ask Protestants the same set of questions.

Remember the Roman Church claims the universal consent of the church fathers as it’s basis whereas Protestants do not. I fault the Roman Church with it’s double standards and illogical arguments for it’s distinctive pet dogmas that lack any biblical and historical basis.

Universal consent in regards to what? Doctrine? Dogma? Opinions? No! Illogical arguments and double standards? Seriously? What about this Protestant one: Age-of-reason baptism only or infant baptism, women clegy or no women clergy,full immersion or pouring,etc,etc? Should I go on? Ring a bell? Where is the logical behind such chaos? By the way,where is the biblical and historical basis for the foundation of theological chaos of Protestanism?

Quote:
And you are DEAD WRONG by stating we have placed our leaders above the Scriptures.

Then why invent doctrines to be dogmatically held that are not taught in Scripture ? This has been a serious problem for the Roman Church for a very long time.

Oh like…man-made churches,once saved always saved,age-of-reason baptisms,faith only,etc,etc,etc…should I go on? Protestanism began as a problem and continues to divide more,care to defend such a mess?

Quote:
On the contrary, Protestants are historically the ones who placed themselves above the scriptures by creating thousands of denominations,whether you care to admit it or not.

I

guess you never heard of the sin of schism. The Roman Church itself is guilty of the sin of schism in it’s split from Eastern Orthodox in 1054ad and it’s schism with Protestants in the 1500’s. The Roman Church itself is one of many denominations. Why complain of different denominations when the RCC is itself one and had problems of schism in it’s history ?

Ah no…why do not you inform me,since Protestanism “rediscovered” Christianity-please! Wrong! Catholicism is NOT a denomination,so top adding to your beloved and yet divided Protestant ideals.

 

[Porknpie]

Greetings in the Lord, Porknpie. Though I don’t speak for Dr. White I can unequivocally state that he does not adhere to “solo” scriptura.

Moreover those who claim sola scriptura is a natural consequence of Sola Scriptura is promoting a red herring and clearly demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the biblical doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Arizona -

Please respond to my earlier post on Mr. White’s own words from the Patrick Madrid debate. He supports solo scriptura in the debate.

In addition, below is his current statement of faith from his alpha omega website. He again, is taking a solo scriptura position and there are no other words in the statement of faith that say or imply otherwise. Has he recently changed his mind and has not updated his website?

**We believe the Bible to be the written revelation of God, complete and sufficient in all respects. We believe the Scriptures to be “God-breathed” and therefore fully authoritative in and of themselves; they rely for their authority upon no church, council, or creed, but are authoritative simply because they are the Word of God. The Scriptures, as they embody the very speaking of God, partake of His authority, His power. **

Where are you getting the belief that he does not hold to solo scriptura? I can’t find any evidence and everything I find IS solo scriptura.

Peace be with you my brother in Christ. I want to believe that what you say is true. If so, that would make him a little more Catholic today than yesterday. That would be good!

 

[Porknpie]

:coffeeread:

We dont have the remains of Peter and Paul either. Mary is equally positionally with all other Christians in the eyes of God. Mary like all Christians have the same spiritual blessings as Paul taught in Eph. 1:3. All Christians are viewed positionally equally in the eyes of God. Mary has no special blessings that other believers do not have. Mary merely gave birth to the Lord Jesus Christ and was therefore the GodBearer. That is what makes .

Chafer -

We do have the remains of Peter as his remains were found under the high alter of St Peters Basilica. They remain there today. Good book to read is “The Bones of St. Peter” by John Evangelist Walsh.

 

[Kristen1999]

Arizona.

You said: “Moreover those who claim sola scriptura is a natural consequence of Sola Scriptura is promoting a red herring and clearly demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the biblical doctrine of Sola Scriptura.”

calledtocommunion.com/2009/11/solo-scriptura-sola-scriptura-and-the-question-of-interpretive-authority/

That article, written by a Called to Communion member, absolutely and completely demolishes any idea of a distinction between ‘solo’ and ‘sola.’ If you disagree, tackle the comments there and state your case.

 

[Arizona_Samson]

Arizona.

You said: “Moreover those who claim sola scriptura is a natural consequence of Sola Scriptura is promoting a red herring and clearly demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the biblical doctrine of Sola Scriptura.”

calledtocommunion.com/2009/11/solo-scriptura-sola-scriptura-and-the-question-of-interpretive-authority/

Pardon my typo. I tried to go back and correct it after the fact but the system wouldn’t permit me to. I meant to type “Moreover those who claim SOLO scriptura is a natural consequence of Sola Scriptura are promoting a red herring…”

That article, written by a Called to Communion member, absolutely and completely demolishes any idea of a distinction between ‘solo’ and ‘sola.’

Well obviously at least in your mind it does.

If you disagree, tackle the comments there and state your case.

I completely disagree, of course. Though it is off topic to this thread I’ll attempt to offer a brief synopsis of the post’s fatal errors if time permits.

Have a blessed evening.

 

[Arizona_Samson]

Arizona -

Please respond to my earlier post on Mr. White’s own words from the Patrick Madrid debate. He supports solo scriptura in the debate.

Hello again, Porknpie. I can see where my original response would be confusing. I corrected my typo in post 95 above in my response to Kristen1999. Please accept my apologies.

In addition, below is his current statement of faith from his alpha omega website. He again, is taking a solo scriptura position and there are no other words in the statement of faith that say or imply otherwise. Has he recently changed his mind and has not updated his website?

**We believe the Bible to be the written revelation of God, complete and sufficient in all respects. We believe the Scriptures to be “God-breathed” and therefore fully authoritative in and of themselves; they rely for their authority upon no church, council, or creed, but are authoritative simply because they are the Word of God. The Scriptures, as they embody the very speaking of God, partake of His authority, His power. **

Where are you getting the belief that he does not hold to solo scriptura? I can’t find any evidence and everything I find IS solo scriptura.

Porknpie Dr. White embraces the biblical doctrine of Sola Scriptura not the strawman caricature known as solo scriptura.

Are you aware of the what the differences are between the two, my friend?

Peace be with you my brother in Christ

Thank you. Peace be to you as well.

 

[Lochias]

What I believe is true catholic teaching. What is specifically rejected is the distinctive doctrines of Roman Catholicism. Too bad you have nothing in the Creeds to claim I believe in something different. Notice in none of the Creeds we dont have the distinctive doctrine of modern Roman Catholicism. You have nothing in the Creeds that can be used as evidence againist me .

Actually you do not have 2000 years. The RCC formed it’s own sect in 1054ad when it split with Eastern Orthodox in the Great Schism . As that stands Eastern Orthodox predates Roman Catholicism. The Church started in Jerusalm in Asian Minor and not Italy in Rome. I see nothing of the church of Rome in Acts 2.

I have the Lord Jesus Christ as I included in the Body of Christ stated in Eph. 1:3-5 and my own vital union with Jesus all important to all Christians in Col. 2:10 and the continuity of the doctrines of the apostles as revealed to us in Scripture and in the creeds of the church such as the Apostle’s Creed.

Actually I do as Jude 3 outlines . We are to believe what Scripture teaches us. There is nothing wrong with that. Remember our faith is to be in Jesus Christ and not the church itself. You have no idea what I believe or what I am and yet you are coming off in a very demeaning manner to me. Do you look down at all those who reject RCC distinctive beliefs as dogs or something ?

I thought I was welcomed to this forum. I am having a conversation. I am not to be talked down to by you or anyone here. That is not right at all. You have NO idea about me or my religious back ground yet you want to make assumptions over me. I said nothing wrong in my post here. Yet you are acting like I did. I do not find the errors of distinctive doctrines of Roman Catholicism that are in error to be a funny manner at all. There is big difference between what my post were and what you claim they are.

My eyes were wide open with Scripture and the reality of church history. If what I got was the " Roman Catholic Answer " than Roman Catholicism is in very bad shape. I honestly felt it was a very poor answer and that is was flawed. It lacked biblical and historical proof. All that was there was claims being made without evidence. Roman Catholicism is not being singled out for this . Others do that as well sometimes. I reject it’s claims because it was without foundation. I was being objectively reasonable on this.

Haters gonna hate. People like you aren’t here for conversation, you’re just here to argue…and frankly, your kind is a dime-a-dozen. Peace.