-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Still waiting for an answer
- Thread starter Ps104_33
- Start date
First mention of Mary's end is from Epiphinius in 377AD:
But if some think us mistaken, let them search the Scriptures. They will not find Mary’s death; they will not find whether she died or did not die; they will not find whether she was buried or was not buried ... Scripture is absolutely silent [on the end of Mary] ... For my own part, I do not dare to speak, but I keep my own thoughts and I practice silence ... The fact is, Scripture has outstripped the human mind and left [this matter] uncertain ... Did she die, we do not know ... Either the holy Virgin died and was buried ... Or she was killed ... Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and He can do whatever He desires; for her end no-one knows.’ (Epiphanius, Panarion, Haer. 78.10-11, 23. Cited by juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. II (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), pp. 139-40).
No mention of an Assumption into Heaven.
In addition to Epiphanius, there is Jerome who also lived in Palestine and does not report any tradition of an assumption. Isidore of Seville, in the seventh century, echoes Epiphanius by saying that no one has any information at all about Mary’s death. The patristic testimony is therefore non-existent on this subject.
The first Church father to affirm explicitly the assumption of Mary in the West was Gregory of Tours in 590 A.D. But the basis for his teaching was not the tradition of the Church but his acceptance of an apocryphal Gospel known as the Transitus Beatae Mariae which we first hear of at the end of the fifth century and which was spuriously attributed to Melito of Sardis.
But if some think us mistaken, let them search the Scriptures. They will not find Mary’s death; they will not find whether she died or did not die; they will not find whether she was buried or was not buried ... Scripture is absolutely silent [on the end of Mary] ... For my own part, I do not dare to speak, but I keep my own thoughts and I practice silence ... The fact is, Scripture has outstripped the human mind and left [this matter] uncertain ... Did she die, we do not know ... Either the holy Virgin died and was buried ... Or she was killed ... Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and He can do whatever He desires; for her end no-one knows.’ (Epiphanius, Panarion, Haer. 78.10-11, 23. Cited by juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. II (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), pp. 139-40).
No mention of an Assumption into Heaven.
In addition to Epiphanius, there is Jerome who also lived in Palestine and does not report any tradition of an assumption. Isidore of Seville, in the seventh century, echoes Epiphanius by saying that no one has any information at all about Mary’s death. The patristic testimony is therefore non-existent on this subject.
The first Church father to affirm explicitly the assumption of Mary in the West was Gregory of Tours in 590 A.D. But the basis for his teaching was not the tradition of the Church but his acceptance of an apocryphal Gospel known as the Transitus Beatae Mariae which we first hear of at the end of the fifth century and which was spuriously attributed to Melito of Sardis.
SolaScriptura
New Member
Let's see. If today there was a plane crash and no one in this century knew if Ben Laden was on that plane or not, and the people who investigated it said "We have no idea if he was on it or not" but a few centuries later some guy said "He certainly was on that plane," who would be more trustworthy?And what of those that did report it from Tradition? Do those others cancel them out?
[ August 16, 2002, 07:35 PM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura ]
CatholicConvert
New Member
One only need look at the hundreds of competing doctrines in Protestantism, along with the many sects, cults, insane cults, and outright NUT CASES, all of whom use and declare that the Bible is their "sole authority" to understand why Christ gave us the Church. However, since we also have a Scripture which tells us what that purpose is, let us use that Scripture:
1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
Y'all git that? The "pillar and ground of the truth". No other teacher (Falwell to Spurgeon, Bob Jones to Thomas Cranmer) has that said of them in the Scriptures. No other institution can lay hold on that claim, for no other institution is founded upon St. Peter, who is the foundation of the Church.
Astralis laid out some very good points regarding things which are not only FIRMLY BELIEVED by evangelicals, but which, if one disagrees with them, one is categorized as "not Christian". And rather than acknowledge that YOU TOO have your traditions which are given a greater weight of being proofs of salvation than necessary, you start doing a tap dance around his premise.
T'aint cricket, guys!! If you are going to try to criticize the Catholic and Orthodox Faiths for holding to Apostolic Tradition, then you are going to have to acknowledge that you have many of your own which you hold in very high esteem also.
Of course, what's reall funny is that you guys don't even all agree with each other, sometimes to the point of rather HEATED conversation, but the one thing you do share is a common hatred of the Church!! Very interesting.
Christ also gave us the Church so that we could be NOURISHED, ENCOURAGED, DISCIPLINED, and GUIDED TO HEAVEN BY THE SACRAMENTS. What kind of Father would God be if He didn't leave us with a Mother here on earth to take care of us? The Church is our Mother, and St. Cyprian said of Her:
He who will not have the Church as his mother shall neither have God as his Father
Your basis problem is that if it doesn't make intellectual sense to you (such as the doctrine of the Real Presence) you reject it. The Faith is a mystery. Not everything is understood by all. But we do have the promise of our Lord Jesus that HE would be sure to guide the Church into all truth by His Spirit (John 16:13).
Astralis --
Man, you are doing some kind of good job here explaining these things!!! You are way out of my league!!! It's a shame they aren't even listening, but rather, the minute they read a post of yours, run to the typewritter to spit out some kind of knee jerk reaction.
1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
Y'all git that? The "pillar and ground of the truth". No other teacher (Falwell to Spurgeon, Bob Jones to Thomas Cranmer) has that said of them in the Scriptures. No other institution can lay hold on that claim, for no other institution is founded upon St. Peter, who is the foundation of the Church.
Astralis laid out some very good points regarding things which are not only FIRMLY BELIEVED by evangelicals, but which, if one disagrees with them, one is categorized as "not Christian". And rather than acknowledge that YOU TOO have your traditions which are given a greater weight of being proofs of salvation than necessary, you start doing a tap dance around his premise.
T'aint cricket, guys!! If you are going to try to criticize the Catholic and Orthodox Faiths for holding to Apostolic Tradition, then you are going to have to acknowledge that you have many of your own which you hold in very high esteem also.
Of course, what's reall funny is that you guys don't even all agree with each other, sometimes to the point of rather HEATED conversation, but the one thing you do share is a common hatred of the Church!! Very interesting.
Christ also gave us the Church so that we could be NOURISHED, ENCOURAGED, DISCIPLINED, and GUIDED TO HEAVEN BY THE SACRAMENTS. What kind of Father would God be if He didn't leave us with a Mother here on earth to take care of us? The Church is our Mother, and St. Cyprian said of Her:
He who will not have the Church as his mother shall neither have God as his Father
Your basis problem is that if it doesn't make intellectual sense to you (such as the doctrine of the Real Presence) you reject it. The Faith is a mystery. Not everything is understood by all. But we do have the promise of our Lord Jesus that HE would be sure to guide the Church into all truth by His Spirit (John 16:13).
Astralis --
Man, you are doing some kind of good job here explaining these things!!! You are way out of my league!!! It's a shame they aren't even listening, but rather, the minute they read a post of yours, run to the typewritter to spit out some kind of knee jerk reaction.
SolaScriptura
New Member
Throughout the centuries, Catholic theologians have taught differing doctrines too.
With all thats been in the news lately concernig the Roman Catholic Church you calling protestants NUT CASES?One only need look at the hundreds of competing doctrines in Protestantism, along with the many sects, cults, insane cults, and outright NUT CASES, all of whom use and declare that the Bible is their "sole authority" to understand why Christ gave us the Church. However, since we also have a Scripture which tells us what that purpose is, let us use that Scripture:
The above makes no sense whatsoever THe Church was founded on Jesus Christ, not Peter. But lets not go there, ok?Y'all git that? The "pillar and ground of the truth". No other teacher (Falwell to Spurgeon, Bob Jones to Thomas Cranmer) has that said of them in the Scriptures. No other institution can lay hold on that claim, for no other institution is founded upon St. Peter, who is the foundation of the Church.
Could you please name some of these traditions that Protestants believe THAT IS NECESSARY FOR SALVATION OF THE SOUL?
Here is a really scary statement from a very well known Roman Catholic apologist on the Assumption:
"Still, fundamentalists ask, where is the proof from Scripture? Strictly, there is none. It was the Catholic Church that was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly. The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true."
That was Karl Keating by the way.
"Still, fundamentalists ask, where is the proof from Scripture? Strictly, there is none. It was the Catholic Church that was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly. The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true."
That was Karl Keating by the way.
We can help prove it from scripture but the topic of the Assumption was from Apostolic Tradition - you even brought this up. No one claims that it comes from scripture.
Yes, because the Catholic Church says it's true then it must be true but that's not good apologetics and will hardly convince any Protestant. Karl Keating gets carried away sometimes.
[ August 17, 2002, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: Astralis ]
Yes, because the Catholic Church says it's true then it must be true but that's not good apologetics and will hardly convince any Protestant. Karl Keating gets carried away sometimes.
[ August 17, 2002, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: Astralis ]
CatholicConvert
New Member
Yeah, Keating does that, but he is, of course, correct. The Church IS the "pillar and foundation of the truth" as promised in Scripture.
What this means to me as a convert is that sometimes I can't quite understand certain doctrines, but I DO understand what the Bible says, and therefore, when Jesus promised that the apostles (and those who inherited their offices of bishop) would be led into ALL truth, I choose to believe Him. When the Bible says that the Church is the "pillar and foundation of truth", then I choose to put the understnding and teaching of the Church over my puny little brain. This is something that Protestants simply will not do. In a massive display of egocentricity, Protestants consider their OWN interpretation of the Bible infallible.
Each Protestant thinks that he is infallible, and then he goes out and finds others who think like he does and they start a "church" somewhere.
Of course, IF, in due time, someone comes up with a new interpretation, then that person leaves, takes with him as many as he can persuade to his opinion, and starts yet another "church".
Far be it for a Protestant to believe that God would make SOMEONE OTHER THAN THEM actually infallible!!
Brother Ed
What this means to me as a convert is that sometimes I can't quite understand certain doctrines, but I DO understand what the Bible says, and therefore, when Jesus promised that the apostles (and those who inherited their offices of bishop) would be led into ALL truth, I choose to believe Him. When the Bible says that the Church is the "pillar and foundation of truth", then I choose to put the understnding and teaching of the Church over my puny little brain. This is something that Protestants simply will not do. In a massive display of egocentricity, Protestants consider their OWN interpretation of the Bible infallible.
Each Protestant thinks that he is infallible, and then he goes out and finds others who think like he does and they start a "church" somewhere.
Of course, IF, in due time, someone comes up with a new interpretation, then that person leaves, takes with him as many as he can persuade to his opinion, and starts yet another "church".
Far be it for a Protestant to believe that God would make SOMEONE OTHER THAN THEM actually infallible!!
Brother Ed
When you say that you put the understanding and teachings of the church over your "puny little brain", isnt the church just made up of sinful men with "puny little brains" just like yours? Therefore we need an infallible authority. Scripture.
Isnt that what the Jesuits do? Boy, talk about rebellious church members they take the cake.
They had to be disbanded a couple of times because of treir rebelliousness. Isnt it interesting that just 1 day before Pope John Paul I was to deliver a speech of warning to the Society's general congregation......well you know what happened.
I dont think I am infallible but the Scriptures are and they are materially sufficient and perspicuous.Each Protestant thinks that he is infallible, and then he goes out and finds others who think like he does and they start a "church" somewhere.
Isnt that what the Jesuits do? Boy, talk about rebellious church members they take the cake.
They had to be disbanded a couple of times because of treir rebelliousness. Isnt it interesting that just 1 day before Pope John Paul I was to deliver a speech of warning to the Society's general congregation......well you know what happened.
How do you know your interpretation is correct?I dont think I am infallible but the Scriptures are and they are materially sufficient and perspicuous.
How do you know that the Roman Catholic Church's interpretation is correct?How do you know your interpretation is correct?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It certainly is. But it is not, and never was the "Catholic Church."Originally posted by CatholicConvert:
The Church IS the "pillar and foundation of the truth" as promised in Scripture.
Because Jesus said the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. That His Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth. That the teaching is the same since Apostolic times; that the heirarchy is the same as mentioned in scripture...all Catholic bishops can have their lineage of predecessors traced back to the time of the apostles.How do you know that the Roman Catholic Church's interpretation is correct?
The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they in turn will teach.
The Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, regularly appealed to apostolic succession as a test for whether Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine. This was necessary because heretics simply put their own interpretations, even bizarre ones, on Scripture. Clearly, something other than Scripture had to be used as an ultimate test of doctrine in these cases.
Irenaeus:
"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about" (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).
[ August 18, 2002, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: Astralis ]
Dualhunter
New Member
Because Jesus said the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. That His Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth. That the teaching is the same since Apostolic times; that the heirarchy is the same as mentioned in scripture...all Catholic bishops can have their lineage of predecessors traced back to the time of the apostles.Originally posted by Astralis:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
How do you know that the Roman Catholic Church's interpretation is correct?
The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they in turn will teach.
The Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, regularly appealed to apostolic succession as a test for whether Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine. This was necessary because heretics simply put their own interpretations, even bizarre ones, on Scripture. Clearly, something other than Scripture had to be used as an ultimate test of doctrine in these cases.
Irenaeus:
"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about" (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).</font>[/QUOTE]You are basing this on the Catholic church's private interpretation of scripture. This interpretation is false and is especially shown to be false simply be looking at the Catholic church's rejection of evangelizing Jews.
Originally posted by Astralis:
It isn't! It is not the correct interpretation.How do you know that the Roman Catholic Church's interpretation is correct?
We know that it is not the correct interpretation because the gates of Hell have prevailed, and it has allowed all sorts of Hellish doctrines into its organization, not even worthy enough to be called a church.
We know that it is not, because it persecuted those who did have the correct interpretation of the Word of God and called them heretics.
We know that it is not, because it hated the Word of God with such a great intensity that it gathered every copy of the Word of God it could find and burned it (during Tyndale's time).
We know that it is not, because it has paganized Christianity, and Christianized paganism.
We know that it is not, because contrary to popular Catholic belief, the Catholic Church (like the condemned Pharisees) have taken away the "keys" from their people, so that they also are condemned.
We know that it is not, because they do not preach the truth of the gospel as the Apostles preached it (remember there was no "Mass" in the New Testament).
No, the Catholic Church does not have the correct interpretation. It never did.
DHK
Have we? Teaching has always been correct. Human discipline hasn't. Let's look at what Jesus said. Paul and Christ himself warned us that there would be a few ravenous wolves among Church leaders (Acts 20:29; Matt. 7:15).We know that it is not the correct interpretation because the gates of Hell have prevailed, and it has allowed all sorts of Hellish doctrines into its organization, not even worthy enough to be called a church.
Acts 20:29: For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
Matt. 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
The Church is not just for the elect.
Concerning 2 Tim 3:15 "pillar and ground of truth...."Because Jesus said the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. That His Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth. That the teaching is the same since Apostolic times; that the heirarchy is the same as mentioned in scripture...all Catholic bishops can have their lineage of predecessors traced back to the time of the apostles.
The Church's role is to be a support to the truth by faithfully holding forth the message and authority of the written Scriptures. It is not independant of, or above Scripture, but beneath it.