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

[WesleyF]

James White is “appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints” (Jude 1:3) Are there any scholars from “the one true church that Jesus established” who will step up to James challenge?

Yes, but he forgot the “gentleness and reverence” part mentioned in 1 Peter 3:15. With these kind of arrogant statements of his - “I’ll take on ten of you at once, if you’d like. I don’t care.** If you want to roll through the whole group**, I don’t care. 1, 2, 3, 10, doesn’t matter.”, it is clear that he is not being gentle. Let him learn gentleness and humility first, because the Bible also says - “But avoid stupid controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels over the law, for they are unprofitable and futile” (Tit 3:9). With such arrogance, he is not sending an invitation for a debate, but for a quarrel.

A true follower of the one true church that Jesus established would therefore decline such an offer.

 

[Chafer_DTS]

Haters gonna hate.

True enough based on the ad hom attacks done in this tread by some people.

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

You have no idea of who I am or what kind of person I am. My replies here have been a conversation. I made no ad hom attacks and keep things very reasonable. Just because I disagree with the distinctive teachings of Roman Catholicism does not mean I am a hate for my disagreement with it. All too often so called converts to Roman Catholicism act like anyone who disagrees with their new found faith are haters , bigots or their favorite word " anti-catholic " . When you say " your kind " what on earth do you mean ? If you and your Roman Church denomination can’t provide sound biblical and historical answers for it’s distinctive beliefs that is not my fault. I was being very honest in my comments about that. You say that " you’re just here to argue " . But you fail to see that a person here challenged others to come over here to this thread. When someone does and I get your comments ??? In the final factor, I do not believe you can answer my questions or defend properly the issue that was going on. This is a theological disagreement and not a personal one . Seems like you think theological disagreement means it is a personal issue of hate or things like that. As I said before you dont know me or the type of person that I am to be judged unfairly by you.

 

[CalCatholic]

Great. While we’re at it let’s examine the modern day Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation in light of both what the Bible teaches and what the early church taught for the first *900+ years *following the Last Supper.

I’m a little late to this thread, but as I have scanned through it, I noticed several people have answered your ‘challenge’ to examine the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation and you have not responded to their posts

 

[Arizona_Samson]

Yes, but he forgot the “gentleness and reverence” part mentioned in 1 Peter 3:15. With these kind of arrogant statements of his - “I’ll take on ten of you at once, if you’d like. I don’t care.** If you want to roll through the whole group**, I don’t care. 1, 2, 3, 10, doesn’t matter.”, it is clear that he is not being gentle. Let him learn gentleness and humility first, because the Bible also says - “But avoid stupid controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels over the law, for they are unprofitable and futile” (Tit 3:9). With such arrogance, he is not sending an invitation for a debate, but for a quarrel.

Wesley we can all stand to be more charitable. Have you not read any of the hateful comments directed at Dr. White spewed from the keyboards of some of your like-minded brethren here in these threads?

Exactly where is the place that the old idiom says charity begins?

A true follower of the one true church that Jesus established would therefore decline such an offer.

A “true follower” known as Paul the Apostle would disagree with you as he suffered shipwreck, dissention, and quarrels over the law in defending the Gospel of, as you yourself say, “the one true church that Jesus established.”

 

[Arizona_Samson]

I’m a little late to this thread, but as I have scanned through it, I noticed several people have answered your ‘challenge’ to examine the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation and you have not responded to their posts

Good evening, CC. You are correct, I haven’t responded. When discussing doctrine with my Catholic friends it has always been my practice to try and stay on topic so the discussion doesn’t veer off into the stratosphere.

Of course in this instance I’m the one at fault since I brought up transubstantiation in passing while making a point that related to the topic of this thread.

I’ll go back and answer the couple of questions posed to me concerning transubstantiation so we can return to the topic at hand.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

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.

Simplistic and misleading. The Church of Rome didn’t pop into existence in 1054, and neither did the Latin Church. Nor, for that matter, did the eastern patriarchates of Antioch, Jerusalem, etc.

Both the so-called “Roman Catholic Church” and the so-called “Eastern Orthodox Church” existed, united in one visible communion, from apostolic times.

And both have always believed in the Assumption of the Theotokos.

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?

Sometimes there’s a spirit of triumphalism in the posts of Catholics on this forum. I apologize on behalf of all of us for any patronizing/demeaning comments you’ve endured.

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

No, that’s patently untrue:

Neither side actually formally created a schism. The East-West Schism developed gradually.

In 1054, Pope Leo IX sent legates to Patriarch Cerularius of Constantinople to discuss their differences. It didn’t go well. The legates, not knowing that Pope Leo IX had died and that their authority was therefore suspended, attempted to excommunicate Cerularius. He, in turn, excommunicated the papal legates.

No one attempted to excommunicate whole patriarchates. No one attempted to excommunicate the Pope of Rome. This was just a step along the path.

So the charge that in 1054 the Church of Rome created a schism is just libel.

and it’s schism with Protestants in the 1500’s.

But it was the Protestant sects that broke off from the Catholic Church. There’s fault on both sides for this fragmentation of Christianity, but what the Protestant reformers did was not a good thing. They, not the Catholic Church, created new 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.

The Church of Rome is a diocese, not a denomination. All the particular churches of the world in full communion with the Church of Rome together constitute the Catholic Church.

By the standards of your above claim, the American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese of America (to take a random example) would be its own “denomination,” which is ridiculous: it’s a diocese of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and a part of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Dioceses are not denominations. They are geographical jurisdictions.

 

[Nita]

I’m presuming James White flatly denies Mary was assumed into heaven since it is not explicitly stated in Scripture that she (Mary explicitly identified in some way - either by her name or as “mother of Jesus”) was assumed.
In any discussion with him, I guess I would ask him for the scriptural basis of his belief that Mary was not assumed into heaven. In other words,*** “Where does Scripture explicitly say that Mary (or the mother of Jesus)* was not assumed into heaven?” **

If Scripture doesn’t explicitly state it, then what does he, a sola scriptura Christian, base his belief/teaching on?!!
If Scripture doesn’t explicitly teach that she wasn’t assumed into heaven, how can he go around saying she wasn’t - ridiculing the teaching that she was?

 

[AlwaysCurious]

If your ad hominem attack on Dr. White’s scholarship is true doesn’t it stand to reason it should be a walk in the park for Called to Communion to soundly defeat him in the prosposed debate?

If so, why not accept his challenge, soundly refute him, and send him scurring for cover to never be heard from again?

Dr. White has offered to debate ten people by himself. Why doesn’t Called to Communion assemble ten of the most erudite and brightest minds from an infallible church so they can finally put an infidel with a doctorate from a diploma mill out of his misery?

If Dr. White is interested in true ecumenical dialogue and searching out the truth, as opposed to a rhetorical spectacle, all he has to do is put forth his case on CtC’s very accessible site. They’ll respond. He could do so right now, today. He could have done so long before now.

 

[Reuben_J]

You have no idea of who I am or what kind of person I am. My replies here have been a conversation. I made no ad hom attacks and keep things very reasonable. Just because I disagree with the distinctive teachings of Roman Catholicism does not mean I am a hate for my disagreement with it.
………….

I was being very honest in my comments about that. You say that " you’re just here to argue " .

If you honestly come here for a conversation instead of just to ague, you have made a very poor example of yourself.

In your earlier post you lied when you said that the Catholic Church was formed in 1054. It is certainly not an honest conversation. I can understand if you claim ignorance about the Catholic Church and that you are merely quoting someone else from your church. But the Catholic Church was not formed in 1054 and it was not a sect. We can give you the long line of uninterrupted popes all the way back to St. Peter, but then all that information can easily be found even in Catholic Answers.

I suggest you tone down your attack or opinion rather and let’s really have a conversation instead of just arguing. Stating false statement on the Church you want to discredit will not help your cause.

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.

The mentioned earlier post.

 

[Lochias]

True enough based on the ad hom attacks done in this tread by some people.

You have no idea of who I am or what kind of person I am. My replies here have been a conversation. I made no ad hom attacks and keep things very reasonable. Just because I disagree with the distinctive teachings of Roman Catholicism does not mean I am a hate for my disagreement with it. All too often so called converts to Roman Catholicism act like anyone who disagrees with their new found faith are haters , bigots or their favorite word " anti-catholic " . When you say " your kind " what on earth do you mean ? If you and your Roman Church denomination can’t provide sound biblical and historical answers for it’s distinctive beliefs that is not my fault. I was being very honest in my comments about that. You say that " you’re just here to argue " . But you fail to see that a person here challenged others to come over here to this thread. When someone does and I get your comments ??? In the final factor, I do not believe you can answer my questions or defend properly the issue that was going on. This is a theological disagreement and not a personal one . Seems like you think theological disagreement means it is a personal issue of hate or things like that. As I said before you dont know me or the type of person that I am to be judged unfairly by you.

Whatever you say, man. I, unlike you, am not here to argue.

 

[Reuben_J]

No, I’m not comparing him to Jesus, just simply pointing out that he and all who suffer personal attacks for the sake of the Gospel are in good company.

"If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you." John 15:18

Sound self-righteous, are we not? Catholics are Christians, like you we are not the ‘world’. Unless you purposely want to use this verse on us, I must say you should learn your Scripture correctly first.

 

[Chafer_DTS]

If you honestly come here for a conversation instead of just to ague, you have made a very poor example of yourself.

Hardly. Only in the mind of those types of Roman Catholic who are " anti-Protestant " . They do that which they claim that Protestants do to them.

In your earlier post you lied when you said that the Catholic Church was formed in 1054. It is certainly not an honest conversation.

What you posted there is a lie. I NEVER SAID THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WAS FORMED IN 1054AD.Utter dishonesty in what you claimed I that I said. I specifically stated Roman Catholicism formed it’s own sect in 1054ad when it split from Eastern Orthodox.Appears you are doing the lying that you claim that I am doing. I have history on my side and not historical revisionism which is all too often found amoung in Roman Catholicism. THE GREAT SCHISM TOOK PLACE IN 1054AD. Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox split. That is called a historical fact. Are you in denial of the Great Schism. Your issue would be with Eastern Orthodox on this specific point. The fact remains the Roman See separated itself from the other 4 Sees of Eastern Orthodox.

I can understand if you claim ignorance about the Catholic Church and that you are merely quoting someone else from your church. But the Catholic Church was not formed in 1054 and it was not a sect.

Once again the dishonesty of what I said. I stated the Roman Church I did not say that the " Catholic Church " was formed in 1054ad. Why are you dishonest over what I said exactly ? The Roman Church split from Eastern Orthodox in the Great Schism. The Roman Church is a sect like all others. The Roman Church is mererly one of many branches within the Catholic Church. The only conclusion that I can think of as to why you were not truthful in what I said is that you evidently think the Roman Church alone is to be equated as the Catholic Church itself. That utterly disregards history. Read Acts 2 the location there is Jerusalem and not Rome in Italy.

We can give you the long line of uninterrupted popes all the way back to St. Peter, but then all that information can easily be found even in Catholic Answers.

All the list contradict one another. In fact the very first list written by Ireaneus claims that Linus was the first Bishop of Rome. It list him as being appointed by Peter and Paul. PETER IS NEVER STATED AS ROME’S FIRST BISHOP IN THE FIRST CLAIMED LISTING. What we all too often get is historical revisionism from Catholic Answers on this point of issue. Lets not also forget no episcopacy in the Church of Rome until around 140ad. prior to that they had two orders of ministry not three. Guess we wont find that honestly stated by those who want to deny the facts of history.

I suggest you tone down your attack or opinion rather and let’s really have a conversation instead of just arguing. Stating false statement on the Church you want to discredit will not help your cause.

There is nothing wrong with my tone. The only reason why you have a problem is that I disagree with the distinctive doctrines of Roman Catholicism that are not biblical at all. I am not the one who is making the virgin Mary as functionally part of the Trinity as a couple of people on this thread did. My statements were correct not unless you deny the Great Schism in 1054ad when the Roman Church split from Eastern Orthodox. I suggest that better proof be shown to me instead of what was given to me so far. Showing me Enoch and Elijah being taken to heaven is not showing me that Mary was taken to heaven. Like I said before that is like me claiming that I have a cell phone and only showing pictures of other people holding a cell phone in my hand and none of me at all.

 

[Chafer_DTS]

Whatever you say, man. I, unlike you, am not here to argue.

I am having a discussion. Theological disagreement does not equate as being here to argue. There is nothing personal about this at all.

 

[Reuben_J]

What you posted there is a lie. I NEVER SAID THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WAS FORMED IN 1054AD.Utter dishonesty in what you claimed I that I said. I specifically stated Roman Catholicism formed it’s own sect in 1054ad when it split from Eastern Orthodox.Appears you are doing the lying that you claim that I am doing. I have history on my side and not historical revisionism which is all too often found amoung in Roman Catholicism. THE GREAT SCHISM TOOK PLACE IN 1054AD. Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox split. That is called a historical fact. Are you in denial of the Great Schism. Your issue would be with Eastern Orthodox on this specific point. The fact remains the Roman See separated itself from the other 4 Sees of Eastern Orthodox.

I have to disagree with you then because we did not form our own sect as you said. That is disrespectful and not the truth. If by what you said there is a difference between forming in 1054 and forming a new sect, then it is fine. I cannot see the difference though as the Catholic Church has not formed a new sect and it was the same since its inception. Yes, there was the schism, you seem to make a great deal about it to the extent that after 1054 a new sect was formed. I doubt if any Catholics here would agree with you.

Once again the dishonesty of what I said. I stated the Roman Church I did not say that the " Catholic Church " was formed in 1054ad. Why are you dishonest over what I said exactly ? The Roman Church split from Eastern Orthodox in the Great Schism. The Roman Church is a sect like all others. The Roman Church is mererly one of many branches within the Catholic Church. The only conclusion that I can think of as to why you were not truthful in what I said is that you evidently think the Roman Church alone is to be equated as the Catholic Church itself. That utterly disregards history. Read Acts 2 the location there is Jerusalem and not Rome in Italy.

What is the difference? The Catholic Church is the continuation of the Church; it is always there. You mentioned RCC in your post, a term that is more meaningful to those who try to make it into a new entity.

 

[Reuben_J]

The Catholic Church is the Church that is founded on Peter the Rock on which Jesus built and it still stands uninterrupted today after two thousand years of apostolic succession.

 

[Lochias]

I am having a discussion. Theological disagreement does not equate as being here to argue. There is nothing personal about this at all.

There doesn’t have to be anything personal in order for someone to come off as condescending and rude. If you want better and more cordial answers, maybe you’d better just start over and try again?

 

[Nicea325]

You have no idea of who I am or what kind of person I am. My replies here have been a conversation. I made no ad hom attacks and keep things very reasonable. Just because I disagree with the distinctive teachings of Roman Catholicism does not mean I am a hate for my disagreement with it.

Okay…I guess.

All too often so called converts to Roman Catholicism act like anyone who disagrees with their new found faith are haters , bigots or their favorite word " anti-catholic " . When you say " your kind " what on earth do you mean ?

Sorry,but it can be anti-Catholic,whether you care to admit it or not.

If you and your Roman Church denomination can’t provide sound biblical and historical answers for it’s distinctive beliefs that is not my fault.

First of all, please understand the RC is NOT denomination. Denominations are a creation of Protestanism. Sound biblical and historical answers for our distinctive beliefs? And is it our fault someone as yourself still cannot comprehend and see it?

I was being very honest in my comments about that. You say that " you’re just here to argue " . But you fail to see that a person here challenged others to come over here to this thread. When someone does and I get your comments ??? In the final factor, I do not believe you can answer my questions or defend properly the issue that was going on.

And yet you claim people here have no idea of who you are,yet you know with certitude an individual here cannot answer your questions? Nice double standard.

This is a theological disagreement and not a personal one . Seems like you think theological disagreement means it is a personal issue of hate or things like that. As I said before you dont know me or the type of person that I am to be judged unfairly by you.

Well no offense,but perhaps you ought to read your own words and confirm it they were “nice” or “respectful.”

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Second warning
Stay on the topic of the OP.

 

[KathleenGee]

Problem with the construct…the Catholic Church is not Christian and the Bible is only the legitimate authority of God…is that such a belief is not based on reality.

By 100 AD, the ancient Christian world had the Mass in basic form with liturgy of Word and Eucharist, ecclesial authority based on bishop, deacon, presbyter, priest, the Apostles Creed, and most books of the Bible assembled – the work of many men chosen as successors by the apostles.

We Catholics are Christ followers and our faith in Him is big.

We believe He is powerful and knowledgeable enough to decide for Himself to choose mortal men to run His Church…but men chosen, consecrated in truth and spirit, and always in the spirit of the Church to publicly submit their teachings and insights to the Holy Spirit at work in the Church.

Subsequently, we are ecclesial deists, our faith big enough to realize Christ at work in the sacrament of Holy Orders, that the Resurrected Christ has made all things new, including us, and He draws all men to Himself.

Christ did not pass out Bibles in His life time.

Anyone with a broad, general education knows about context…In Catholicism…it is about context.

How was the faith of the Apostles now set down into practice???

This practice of faith is animated and sustained by the Holy Spirit…through faith, hope, and charity in the spirit of one mind and one heart…communion, the continuity of the same faith of the Apostles protected and persevered through each generation.
This is what Tradition is – not what a fundamentalist tells you.

Never trust an anti-Catholic fundamentalist to explain Catholicism to you, because, for some reason they are threatened by our faith, do not want you to know the truth about it, and spend over 50% of their time fighting it instead of living totally for Christ and His Truth.

For context…and what it means…you have to see it as the determiner of what was intended for a church teaching or pastoral practice…and it all reflects the times and conditions of that particular period. Such small traditions come and go.

But the great Tradition of faith is found in our catechism.

Our faith follows Christ in the way of the Apostles.

And Mary was considered sinless since the beginning of the Church.

And it took the Church 1,800 years, after reflecting as well as accessing the historical documents of ascetism and union with God, the study of perfection by the example fo countless saints down through the ages.

Mary’s walk was different than ours as she did not sin.

Not all truths about Christian faith are found in the Bible. In fact, there is no Christian witness of faith in the New Testament after Revelations.

So where is the witness of faith, considering Christ’ death and resurrection, and His regeneration of all Christian after the New Testament? There are no additional bibles documenting Christian life after Revelations…but the witness of believers is countless in the Old Testament…and yet Christ is the fulfillment of Scripture…

If Christ is the great turning point in history…the event of salvation and redemption, after the last book in the Bible of Revelations, **where is the great testimony of Christianity after the ending of Revelations?

Where are the documents???**

The documents of Christianity is found in the Catholic Church. And as the Vatican Library is the greatest library in the world it is a living testament – the Church itself – the greatness of Christ at work in believers----spirituality, humanitarian works and foundations of education, healthcare, etc; sciences and the arts…all testament to the glory of Christ and His resurrection, and His making of all things new.

 

[Nicea325]

I’m presuming James White flatly denies Mary was assumed into heaven since it is not explicitly stated in Scripture that she (Mary explicitly identified in some way - either by her name or as “mother of Jesus”) was assumed.
In any discussion with him, I guess I would ask him for the scriptural basis of his belief that Mary was not assumed into heaven. In other words,*** “Where does Scripture explicitly say that Mary (or the mother of Jesus)*** was not assumed into heaven?”

If Scripture doesn’t explicitly state it, then what does he, a sola scriptura Christian, base his belief/teaching on?!!
If Scripture doesn’t explicitly teach that she wasn’t assumed into heaven, how can he go around saying she wasn’t - ridiculing the teaching that she was?

Easily. Because so many believe if it is not said in the Bible,therefore it is false. Well my first challenge to Mr. White would be this:

First show me where Scripture teaches explicitness and where everything must be said and taught from the Bible-only?