Not to bring up the Catholic thing again, but...

[Marcia]

So If Elijah and Enoch were "assumed" into heaven why not Mary?

Because the Bible tells us this is what happened to Elijah and Enoch.

No where does the scriptures say she died.

That does not mean she didn't die. And nowhere does it say she was assumed into heaven. That is a pretty big assumption to make. To think it privately is one thing, to teach it as a doctrine is another, and is quite unbiblical. In fact, this wasn't declared an official doctrine by the RCC until somewhere around 1950.

Also note Christ is the first fruits doesn't say anything about them dieing agian or going back to their graves. Christ resurrection is premier not necissarily the first because Elijah raised that boy back to life long before Jesus raised.

Jesus was the first who had bodily resurrection in a glorified body. Being brought back to life is not the same as bodily resurrection. Being brought back to life is being back in the same body. Jesus was the firstfruits of bodily resurrection, because his body was resurrected as an imperishable body.

The bodily resurrection of Christ is unlike anything taught in any other religion, and is one of the teachings that sets Christianity apart from all other religions. His resurrection gives believers the hope of their own bodily resurrection one day - this is also not taught in any other religion I know of.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Because the Bible tells us this is what happened to Elijah and Enoch.



That does not mean she didn't die. And nowhere does it say she was assumed into heaven. That is a pretty big assumption to make. To think it privately is one thing, to teach it as a doctrine is another, and is quite unbiblical. In fact, this wasn't declared an official doctrine by the RCC until somewhere around 1950.



Jesus was the first who had bodily resurrection in a glorified body. Being brought back to life is not the same as bodily resurrection. Being brought back to life is being back in the same body. Jesus was the firstfruits of bodily resurrection, because his body was resurrected as an imperishable body.

The bodily resurrection of Christ is unlike anything taught in any other religion, and is one of the teachings that sets Christianity apart from all other religions. His resurrection gives believers the hope of their own bodily resurrection one day - this is also not taught in any other religion I know of.

Look if you're going to be sola scriptura you might as well be honest about it. Being brought back to life is a ressurection. Because that is what it means. In a "glorified body" is fine and it makes sense. No problem. However, Elijah and Enoch are not dead. The bible points that out. The scriptures are silent on whether Mary died or assumed. It would be honest to say "I don't know becuase scriptures are silent on the matter." That is what a true sola scripturist would say. Anything else is personal opinion.

 

[Matt Black]

Matthew 27:51-52 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
Matthew 27:53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

1 Corinthians 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.


The saints that arose, arose after the resurrection, as it explicitly says.
Paul stresses that Jesus was the firstfruits of them that slept or were dead. He was the first one to rise from the dead. It could be no other way.

Yes, but, unlike Jesus, those individuals - and those directly raise by Him like Jairus' daughter, Lazarus and the son of the widow of Nain - were not permanently resurrected - ultimately they died for a second time (which gives us a curious exception to the statement in Hebrews 9:27).

Concerning Elijah and Enoch they did not rise from the dead. They were "assumed" into heaven. That is different. They didn't die. Jesus died; was buried; then after three days arose from the dead--permanently.

So you agree that the concept of assumption is Biblical?

 

[Agnus_Dei]

"Because the Bible...", "Because the Bible...", "Because the Bible..."

There's lots of events that had taken place before, in between and after the Bible that didn't make the pages of the Bible...St. John is clear on this...Furthermore, Christ's instructions to His Apostles wasn't to go forth and pen the pages of a "Bible", His instructions were to build His Church. The Bible is a product of the Church.

the Bible is silent on the matter regarding Mary's life after Christ instructed St. John to care for her...simply b/c her life after is irreverent to the message of the Bible...

As Thinkingstuff rightly points out, IF you're going to be strictly Sola Scriptura, then if the Bible is silent on any matter, then it's nothing more than YOUR personal opinion and unless you have facts outside of Scripture to back your personal opinion, then you can't lecture someone that they are wrong...

All we have is the witness of the Church fathers and most of those are legends or stories passed on in regard to the end of Mary's life...The Orthodox Church celebrates the "Dormition of Mary" Fast in August...meaning the falling asleep of Mary...so we believe and teach Mary died a physical death...legend has it though that after the death of Mary all the Apostles were gathered for her burial expect St. Thomas (if I remember correctly) and when he finally arrived, he went to visit the tomb and discovered the tomb to be empty. It was concluded that Christ raised and translated His mother to life with Him in the kingdom. Mary is the first to share in advance the resurrection glory even as she was the first to believe.

So we teach as a fact, Mary died...what happened after is a tale that's been handed down to us from generations to generations and people have their opinions, but the Church isn't losing any sleep over this, when there's greater pressing issues facing the Church today.

In XC
-

 

[DHK]

Yes, but, unlike Jesus, those individuals - and those directly raise by Him like Jairus' daughter, Lazarus and the son of the widow of Nain - were not permanently resurrected - ultimately they died for a second time (which gives us a curious exception to the statement in Hebrews 9:27).


So you agree that the concept of assumption is Biblical?

The Bible doesn't use the word "assumption", and as far as the RCC doctrine of Assumption of Mary, no I don't believe it is Biblical.
The word used for Enoch is "translated."
And Elijah was taken up in a chariot of fire. The word "assumed" was my own word, and it was not used the way the Catholics use it.

 

[DHK]

"
"Because the Bible...", "Because the Bible...", "Because the Bible..."

So we teach as a fact, Mary died...what happened after is a tale that's been handed down to us from generations to generations and people have their opinions, but the Church isn't losing any sleep over this, when there's greater pressing issues facing the Church today.

In XC
-

And you teach a fairy tale. If you want to teach stories outside of the Bible why not go to the Hindu Vedas or the Sikh Granth. There are plenty of stories there.
As for me I will stick to the revelation of God; that which he has revealed to us through the inspiration of His Holy Spirit. I don't listen to your fables.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

And you teach a fairy tale. If you want to teach stories outside of the Bible why not go to the Hindu Vedas or the Sikh Granth. There are plenty of stories there.
As for me I will stick to the revelation of God; that which he has revealed to us through the inspiration of His Holy Spirit. I don't listen to your fables.

Good then...keep quite on things you know nothing about...

-

 

[lori4dogs]

John Deere posted...



For 24 years I never heard the true saving gospel in the RCC

Not once.

It was always a mixing of faith/works/sacraments/confession/Mary's intercession, etc etc.

The true saving gospel of course is simply belief in Christ provision. Faith in Christ and faith in Christ alone

I'm really sorry that was your experience.
I'm a Catholic and I have faith in Christ and faith in Christ alone.
I hear the gospel preached every time I attend mass.

There are liberal Catholic Churches, however, just like you got liberal Baptist
churches that I probably would not hear the 'True Gospel of Christ'. At least at the liberal Catholic Church I would hear the gospel read. It has to be read.

 

[DHK]

I'm really sorry that was your experience.
I'm a Catholic and I have faith in Christ and faith in Christ alone.

If you believe that, I am happy for you.
But ask Agnus, the Catholic Church does not teach that. They hate that doctrine. So does the Orthodox Church, and perhaps even the Anglican. What you have bolded--that message is a hated message among the RCC. If you truly believe it I don't see how you can remain in the Catholic Church.

 

[lori4dogs]

If you believe that, I am happy for you.
But ask Agnus, the Catholic Church does not teach that. They hate that doctrine. So does the Orthodox Church, and perhaps even the Anglican. What you have bolded--that message is a hated message among the RCC. If you truly believe it I don't see how you can remain in the Catholic Church.

There are Catholic Churches with Anglican Use Liturgies (approved by the Vatican). '

The beginning of the canon to the Eucharistic prayer reads:
All glory be to thee, Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for that thou, of thy tender mercy dids't give thine only Son Jesus to suffer death upon the cross for our redemption; who made there, by his one oblation of himself once offered, a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world.'

Sounds like solid theology, IMHO

 

[DHK]

There are Catholic Churches with Anglican Use Liturgies (approved by the Vatican). '

The beginning of the canon to the Eucharistic prayer reads:
All glory be to thee, Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for that thou, of thy tender mercy dids't give thine only Son Jesus to suffer death upon the cross for our redemption; who made there, by his one oblation of himself once offered, a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world.'

Sounds like solid theology, IMHO

Yes, I learned similar things in the Catholic Church.
But that is not salvation by faith and faith alone.

That is simply a descriptive praise of the Lord.

 

[lori4dogs]

Yes, I learned similar things in the Catholic Church.
But that is not salvation by faith and faith alone.

That is simply a descriptive praise of the Lord.

There is more to this 'canon', it goes on further, 'And we earnestly desire thy fatherly goodness mercifully to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, most humbly beseeching thee to grant that, by the merits and death of thy Son Jesus Christ, and through faith in His blood, we and all thy whole Church, may obtain remission of our sins and all other benefits of His passion.'

 

[DHK]

There is more to this 'canon', it goes on further, 'And we earnestly desire thy fatherly goodness mercifully to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, most humbly beseeching thee to grant that, by the merits and death of thy Son Jesus Christ, and through faith in His blood, we and all thy whole Church, may obtain remission of our sins and all other benefits of His passion.'

I am fairly sure that it won't use the term "faith alone" and somewhere down the line it will include works as a requirement for salvation.

 

[annsni]

There is more to this 'canon', it goes on further, 'And we earnestly desire thy fatherly goodness mercifully to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, most humbly beseeching thee to grant that, by the merits and death of thy Son Jesus Christ, and through faith in His blood, we and all thy whole Church, may obtain remission of our sins and all other benefits of His passion.'

That certainly doesn't sound like the confidence of one who is truly saved. "Beseeching" is a begging - we're begging God to give us remission of our sins. That's not faith in the saving blood of Jesus. That's a real lack of confidence, IMO.

 

[lori4dogs]

I am fairly sure that it won't use the term "faith alone" and somewhere down the line it will include works as a requirement for salvation.

Your right, I can't find the term 'faith alone' but I don't find any thing implying we can obtain salvation through works. Repentance and faith in Christ atonement being sufficient seems to run through the entire Eucharistic prayer.

 

[DHK]

Your right, I can't find the term 'faith alone' but I don't find any thing implying we can obtain salvation through works. Repentance and faith in Christ atonement being sufficient seems to run through the entire Eucharistic prayer.

It just occurred to me (I'm a bit slow today), that this is a prayer that is said often--repeated many times, maybe not in one service but it is a written prayer said by many or several times in a year.
Let's look at it and simplify it:

And we earnestly desire thy fatherly goodness mercifully to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, most humbly beseeching thee to grant that, by the merits and death of thy Son Jesus Christ, and through faith in His blood, we and all thy whole Church, may obtain remission of our sins and all other benefits of His passion.'

Essentially it is saying:
We earnestly desire (you)...to accept this...sacrifice...by the merits and death of Christ, and through faith in His blood... (that) we may obtain remission of our sins.

Works is implied in that one must repeat the prayer several times in a year.

A true believer would pray:
I thank you Lord, that you have accepted the sacrifice of the death of Christ, and that we have obtained remission of sins through faith in that blood.

To us it is an accomplished fact. Christ paid the penalty. He shed his blood. I was saved when I did put my faith in his blood. He has forgiven all my sins: past, present and future. I never have to make that "decision" or trust him again. I was born again at that time, when I trusted him as my Saviour.

If you are born once you will die twice.
If you are born twice you will die once.

 

[Marcia]

Look if you're going to be sola scriptura you might as well be honest about it. Being brought back to life is a ressurection. Because that is what it means. In a "glorified body" is fine and it makes sense. No problem. However, Elijah and Enoch are not dead. The bible points that out. The scriptures are silent on whether Mary died or assumed. It would be honest to say "I don't know becuase scriptures are silent on the matter." That is what a true sola scripturist would say. Anything else is personal opinion.

I know Elijah and Enoch are not dead - they didn't die, they were taken into heaven. I think that is partly a picture of the rapture.

Would you think Mary was assumed into heaven from the Bible? No, of course not. And it would probably never occur to you if the RCC didn't teach it.

You're right - it's an opinion, so why does the RCC teach it as doctrine? It's one thing to say it's an opinion as to whether Mary was assumed into heaven or not and another to teach it as doctrine. We are referencing the doctrine of her assumption, at least I am. This doctrine has led to all sorts of teachings, when there is absolutely no biblical basis for it.

 

[Marcia]

There are Catholic Churches with Anglican Use Liturgies (approved by the Vatican). '

The beginning of the canon to the Eucharistic prayer reads:
All glory be to thee, Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for that thou, of thy tender mercy dids't give thine only Son Jesus to suffer death upon the cross for our redemption; who made there, by his one oblation of himself once offered, a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world.'

Sounds like solid theology, IMHO

So why aren't Catholics sure they are going to heaven?

And why do Christians go to purgatory if the above is true?

 

[BobRyan]

I know Elijah and Enoch are not dead - they didn't die, they were taken into heaven. I think that is partly a picture of the rapture.

Would you think Mary was assumed into heaven from the Bible? No, of course not. And it would probably never occur to you if the RCC didn't teach it.

Good question. Here are some more.

1. In the assumption of Mary story - the disciples fly to Mary at her death. She is put in the grave - then is resurrected and assumed up bodily into heaven.

The argument for "flying apostles" is never justified in the RC fiction at this point --

The argument for WHY Mary is resurrected IS clearly stated - which is the Acts 2 reason for Christ's own resurrection. That HE was without sin so God would not suffer is body to undergo decay.

So NOW WE DO have a BIBLE reason for rejecting the RC story about Mary being "sinless like Christ and so like Christ was not allowed to undergo decay" - because from Romans 3 we know that ALL have sinned and from Mary's own statement - Christ was her SAVIOR.

So those who argue that a Sola Scriptural position has no basis to reject the "Mary was assumed into heaven" story - are simply mistaken.


The other glaring problem with their story is that when you observe those who actually BELIEVE that Mary is in heaven - bodily present in heaven - "they talk about it". Yet we have NOT ONE WORD of such a thing mentioned by a Bible writer.

Third - the act of assuming someone into heaven because they are "sinless like Christ" is such a unique event - it is hard to believe that "it never made even honorable mention" by any Bible writer!!

Imagining that little tid bit - is even more strange than imagining the assumption of Mary itself.

If I were Roman Catholic - this piece alone would give me a lot of pause for reflection.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Amy.G]

I know Elijah and Enoch are not dead - they didn't die, they were taken into heaven. I think that is partly a picture of the rapture.

I think so too. And since this earthly body cannot go to heaven, it must be transformed to an incorruptible body. Just as Paul says we will be transformed to meet the Lord in the air.