To the issue of Atpollard's ploy
He wants to define the word and dogma HIS way. Frankly, I permit that in debate. So I agreed. Especially since he had refused -over and over for months - to give substantiation for any of these Baptist dogmas he presented; nice to FINALLY after months, get a discussion that he flat out said he would NOT discuss. So, I agreed to stick to the ONE he would discuss. I agreed to HIS definition. And what happened? He states he will not discuss HIS topic that he gave HIS definition of. Hum.
It's interesting he started this thread rather than address His baptist dogmas (or even just the ONE he said he'd be willing to discuss IF we accepted HIS definition - which we did). Because it proves my point. The burden of proof lies with the one with the position, not those who don't hold to it. He wants those who do NOT teach a view to present a Scripture that states the view is wrong (a SILLY epistemology) but where is his verse, "Mary was NOT assumed into heaven." Where is his verse, "Mary had lots of sex and did not remain a virgin?" Nope. He wants the Catholics to show that the Assumption of Mary is TRUE (I think confident they don't have a Scripture that confirms it, which they don't CLAIM they do). Evidently forgetting HE doesn't have a verse that says, "Only those who have previously in chronological time have proven they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior may be baptized." He calls out the Catholics for what he himself does. Ironically.
To the issue of the Assumption:
Frankly, I consider the Assumption of Mary to have more validity than the Anabaptist dogma of Credobaptism. NEITHER is stated in Scripture. That's simply the reality. Catholics admit it, Baptists don't (Catholics get points from me for honesty). BUT the Assumption has a lot of history, ecumenism and the "rule of faith" going for it - all ENTIRELY, WHOLLY missing from Credobaptism.
True, the Assumption cannot be traced to the First or Second Century, but Credobaptism can't be traced back earlier than the late 16th Century. The Assumption CAN be traced to the Early Church (which Credobaptism cannot) and for most of the history of Christianity, was ecumenically embraced (it had the "rule of faith", what every Christian believed). Now it STILL is not dogma in the Orthodox Church and ONLY became dogma in the RCC in 1870 (incredibly late, heck, Mormonism declared it's dogmas before that!), BUT it was held in faith for many centuries before that. Credobaptism was IN FACT ecumenically denied and rejected for CENTURIES. Something the Assumption hasn't been.
While I don't accept Credobaptism or the Assumption, I must admit the Assumption is much more valid than is the Anabaptist invention of Credobaptism.
.
