Mary and the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin

[atpollard]

It is my deepest hope that this topic will be both short and polite. It is not my intent to PROVE anything or to convince anyone to change their mind. I was just accused of having no scripture for supporting my belief and wanted to calmly and politely present my point of view without derailing a discussion on Baptism.

Now, I might add, you reject the Dogma of the Assumption of Mary, not because you have any verse that proves it wrong but because you note that the RCC
has no verse that proves it's right (you COULD also note no other faith community has this at least as dogma, and that it's quite late). You don't hold that YOU are mandated to quote a Scripture that says "There is no dogma of the Assumption of Mary", they are teaching the dogma, it is THEIR responsibility to confirm it. But Catholics are at least honest: it's not taught in Scripture and they don't claim it is.

Here is the position of the Catholic Church on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary (the mother of Jesus) as taken directly from the Catholic Encyclopedia. I do not present it to challenge or refute, but because it represents roughly what I was taught when I asked the same questions:

Mary's perpetual virginity
In connection with the study of Mary during Our Lord's hidden life, we meet the questions of her perpetual virginity, of her Divine motherhood, and of her personal sanctity. Her spotless virginity has been sufficiently considered in the article on the Virgin Birth. The authorities there cited maintain that Mary remained a virgin when she conceived and gave birth to her Divine Son, as well as after the birth of Jesus. Mary's question (Luke 1:34), the angel's answer (Luke 1:35-37), Joseph's way of behaving in his doubt (Matthew 1:19-25), Christ's words addressed to the Jews (John 8:19) show that Mary retained her virginity during the conception of her Divine Son. [65]

As to Mary's virginity after her childbirth, it is not denied by St. Matthew's expressions "before they came together" (1:18), "her firstborn son" (1:25), nor by the fact that the New Testament books repeatedly refer to the "brothers of Jesus". [66] The words "before they came together" mean probably, "before they lived in the same house", referring to the time when they were merely betrothed; but even if the words be understood of marital intercourse, they only state that the Incarnation took place before any such intercourse had intervened, without implying that it did occur after the Incarnation of the Son of God. [67]

The same must be said of the expression, "and he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son" (Matthew 1:25); the Evangelist tells us what did not happen before the birth of Jesus, without suggesting that it happened after his birth. [68] The name "firstborn" applies to Jesus whether his mother remained a virgin or gave birth to other children after Jesus; among the Jews it was a legal name [69], so that its occurrence in the Gospel cannot astonish us.

Finally, the "brothers of Jesus" are neither the sons of Mary, nor the brothers of Our Lord in the proper sense of the word, but they are His cousins or the more or less near relatives. [70] The Church insists that in His birth the Son of God did not lessen but consecrate the virginal integrity of His mother (Secret in Mass of Purification). The Fathers express themselves in similar language concerning this privilege of Mary. [71]

Here are the Bible verses that I am aware of that make reference to Jesus' brothers:

[Matthew 12:46-47 NIV] 46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you."
[Mark 3:31-32 NIV] 31 Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. 32 A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, "Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you."
[Galatians 1:19 NIV] 19 I saw none of the other apostles--only James, the Lord's brother.
[Jude 1:1 NIV] 1 Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James, To those who have been called, who are loved in God the Father and kept for Jesus Christ:

In Matthew and Mark, Jesus is about to use the moment to teach a profound spiritual truth ... but the crowd probably just meant what they said. If Jesus' mother was there, then Jesus had a mother. If Jesus' brothers were there, then Jesus had brothers. I know how my mother gave me brothers ...

Paul establishes in Galatians that James, the leader of the Church in Jerusalem, is the brother of Jesus.
Jude, the author of the letter bearing his name, identifies himself as the brother of James (the brother of Jesus, head of Church in Jerusalem, and author of the letter of James).

I lean heavily towards Sola Scriptura. I am not an expert in ancient Greek, but I suspect that if Jesus had "cousins" rather than brothers that there is probably a way to express that in Greek. So the issue becomes one of half brothers and other wives that are never mentioned in scripture (I hate assuming things that are off-stage), plus something of a mockery of the definition of "marriage" if Joseph was "married" to a woman he never, ever slept with.

So while I have nothing to PROVE that what the RCC that I once considered joining is wrong about the Perpetual Virginity of Mary (which is a cornerstone of her Assumption), I could never overcome my personal doubts based upon what little information actually appears in scripture about Jesus' brothers.

Thank you for allowing me to explain my beliefs. I hope that I have not offended anyone and if I have misrepresented any details of the Catholic position, it was out of ignorance rather than malice and I welcome correction.

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=334]atpollard[/MENTION]

It is my deepest hope that this topic will be both short and polite. It is not my intent to PROVE anything or to convince anyone to change their mind. I was just accused of having no scripture for supporting my belief and wanted to calmly and politely present my point of view without derailing a discussion on Baptism.

Here is the position of the Catholic Church on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary (the mother of Jesus) as taken directly from the Catholic Encyclopedia. I do not present it to challenge or refute, but because it represents roughly what I was taught when I asked the same questions:

Ah, so you are STILL refusing to discuss your Baptism Dogma - even though I have AGAIN met all your DEMANDS before you would do so.....


What I noted is that YOU reject the RCC Dogma of the Assumption of Mary (as you know, I never mentioned the Perpetual Virginity of Mary). And I noted your epistemology in that rejection.
Here is what I wrote in https://christianityhaven.com/showthread.php?6921-Water-Baptism See posts 452 and 485 for example.

Atpollard,


You SAID (many times) you want to discuss (and just as many times that you won't).

You SAID I must limit everything to a narrow definition of Credobaptism (as you defined); that's the only Baptism dogma of the Baptists you will discuss (and that narrowly defined). And I agreed.

You SAID if I gave my position, you would (finally) enter into discussion and talk about Credobaptism (one of the Baptist dogmas you have been parroting).

So far, you've ignored it (again; yet again).


Let's try one more time:


I hold that there is no biblical prohibition against baptizing people in chronological time before they state that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. Nor is there a biblical mandate that one must show they have previously chosen Jesus as their personal Savior in chronological time BEFORE the prohibition of baptism is for them lifted. I reject the late 16th Century invention of Credobaptism (in all its aspects, but you want to limit it to this one, I believe) in part because it is missing in the Bible (as well as nearly 1600 years of Christianity); it is not taught in the Scriptures.


Now, I admit, it SEEMS that MOST of the examples of baptisms that happen to be exampled in the NT appear do fit this, but we cannot show that they all do. And, like you, I reject the rubric that we MUST do whatever is exampled in the Bible and CANNOT do what is not exampled in the Bible, so this is an irrelevant point.


Now, if you have a verse or verses (previously kept secret) that state we are forbidden to baptize any who has not previously, in chronological time, given statement that they have previously chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, or one(s) that we are mandated to require such, then now present it. But perhaps you only have verses that prove MY point: the dogma isn't there.




Now, I might add, you reject the Dogma of the Assumption of Mary, not because you have any verse that proves it wrong but because you note that the RCC has no verse that proves it's right (you COULD also note no other faith community has this at least as dogma, and that it's quite late). You don't hold that YOU are mandated to quote a Scripture that says "There is no dogma of the Assumption of Mary", they are teaching the dogma, it is THEIR responsibility to confirm it. But Catholics are at least honest: it's not taught in Scripture and they don't claim it is.




.

Post 476



You offer NOTHING from Scripture that states that the RCC Dogma of the Assumption of Mary is WRONG. So why do you reject it? Because you have an epistemology that says it is NOT your task to prove a position you don't have is wrong, it is the proponents responsbility to show it is right.

In the Baptism thread, you parrot and defend the Baptists dogmas on Baptism. And CLAIM you will discuss one of them, Credobaptism (in a very limited sense), IF I would state why I don't accept it (not really my task, but I'm a nice guy) - which I have done. MANY, MANY times - 3 since you issued that Demand on me. But you still won't discuss it.

Instead, you come over here and try to discuss the Perpetual Viriginity of Mary (which NO ONE in the Baptism thread even mentioned and which does NOT prove that one must state they they previously have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior BEFORE in chronological time, the prohibition of baptism is lifted and the Bible permits/mandates that they be baptize).




- Josiah




BTW, you are wrong: You are ASSUMING that "brother" in koine Greek is limited to one who has the same mother. That's NOT the only meaning. Your whole premise is false; your entire apologetic is founded on a falsehood. But irrelevant, it has NOTHING to do with the topic of this thread or with Baptism or with ANYTHING ANYONE said in the thread you reference.






.

 

[Albion]

The perpetual virginity of Mary--even if we took the position that it is true--does nothing to verify the dogma we call the Assumption of Mary.

 

[Josiah]

The perpetual virginity of Mary--even if we took the position that it is true--does nothing to verify the dogma we call the Assumption of Mary.

... or the dogma of Credobaptism.



Our friend is commenting on this....

Now, I might add, you reject the Dogma of the Assumption of Mary, not because you have any verse that proves it wrong but because you note that the RCC has no verse that proves it's right (you COULD also note no other faith community has this at least as dogma, and that it's quite late). You don't hold that YOU are mandated to quote a Scripture that says "There is no dogma of the Assumption of Mary", they are teaching the dogma, it is THEIR responsibility to confirm it. But Catholics are at least honest: it's not taught in Scripture and they don't claim it is.

.

He just decided to change what I said from the Assumption of Mary to the Perpetual Virginity of Mary (and give HORRIBLE and WRONG apologetics for why he rejects the dogma I never mentioned)


See post # 476 here for the context: https://christianityhaven.com/showthread.php?6921-Water-Baptism



.

 

[Tigger]

I prefer to agree with both the assumption and perpetual virginity of the mother of our Lord but under pious opinion and not dogmatically. Biblically I see both Enoch and Elijah being assumed into heaven so there is biblical precedence for it. And the Lord gives His mother over to His disciple during His crucifixion showing to me she had no other offspring to care for her.
When in doubt I side with historic church traditions.

 

[atpollard]

The issue arose as the Church I was attending as an inquiring visitor was preparing for "The Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin".

What is the doctrine of the "Blessed Virgin" in the Catholic Church (HINT: more than the virgin birth: see Immaculate Conception and Perpetual Virginity)
If either the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception or the doctrine of Perpetual Virginity is incorrect, would that have a bearing on the theological justification for the Assumption of a "Blessed Virgin"?

As I understood the concept (which at least does MAKE SENSE) if Mary was born without original sin (Immaculate Conception) and remained a perpetual virgin (because she was the "handmaiden of the LORD", then she had no need to die for the Adamic curse and could be directly assumed into heaven. If Mary was just a normal woman chosen by God, then she needed to die like all of Adam's children. Both her Immaculate Conception (about which the bible says NOTHING AT ALL ONE WAY OR THE OTHER) and her Perpetual Virginity (about which the bible may speak) play a part in the doctrine of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin.

This is not hard to understand ... you cannot have an "Assumption of the Virgin" if she is not a virgin. You can have the Assumption of Mary, but not the "(formerly virgin) Virgin".
For confessing belief in and joining the Catholic Church, all the stuff about Mary is sort of an interrelated package deal. You believe it or you don't. I said that I didn't join because I couldn't believe it.

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=75]Tigger[/MENTION]

I prefer to agree with both the assumption and perpetual virginity of the mother of our Lord but under pious opinion and not dogmatically. Biblically I see both Enoch and Elijah being assumed into heaven so there is biblical precedence for it. And the Lord gives His mother over to His disciple during His crucifixion showing to me she had no other offspring to care for her.
When in doubt I side with historic church traditions.

Understood....and I have no issues at all with your comments.

But please read posts 2-4. And note in the opening post, this is all because of a comment (mine) in the Baptism thread.


Thank you! Blessings on your Easter Season!




.

 

[atpollard]

[MENTION=334]atpollard[/MENTION]






Ah, so you are STILL refusing to discuss your Baptism Dogma - even though I have AGAIN met all your DEMANDS before you would do so.....


What I noted is that YOU reject the RCC Dogma of the Assumption of Mary (as you know, I never mentioned the Perpetual Virginity of Mary). And I noted your epistemology in that rejection.
Here is what I wrote in https://christianityhaven.com/showthread.php?6921-Water-Baptism See posts 452 and 485 for example.



Post 476



You offer NOTHING from Scripture that states that the RCC Dogma of the Assumption of Mary is WRONG. So why do you reject it? Because you have an epistemology that says it is NOT your task to prove a position you don't have is wrong, it is the proponents responsbility to show it is right.

In the Baptism thread, you parrot and defend the Baptists dogmas on Baptism. And CLAIM you will discuss one of them, Credobaptism (in a very limited sense), IF I would state why I don't accept it (not really my task, but I'm a nice guy) - which I have done. MANY, MANY times - 3 since you issued that Demand on me. But you still won't discuss it.

Instead, you come over here and try to discuss the Perpetual Viriginity of Mary (which NO ONE in the Baptism thread even mentioned and which does NOT prove that one must state they they previously have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior BEFORE in chronological time, the prohibition of baptism is lifted and the Bible permits/mandates that they be baptize).




- Josiah




BTW, you are wrong: You are ASSUMING that "brother" in koine Greek is limited to one who has the same mother. That's NOT the only meaning. Your whole premise is false; your entire apologetic is founded on a falsehood. But irrelevant, it has NOTHING to do with the topic of this thread or with Baptism or with ANYTHING ANYONE said in the thread you reference.






.

Thanks for the threadcrapping.
I responded to you and am waiting for you to respond with something other than a demand for a response. Go read back through the Baptism thread.

 

[Josiah]

Thanks for the threadcrapping.

You connected this thread to https://christianityhaven.com/showthread.php?6921-Water-Baptism

You specifically quoted ME in the opening post, from post 452 of https://christianityhaven.com/showthread.php?6921-Water-Baptism

I responded to you and am waiting for you to respond with something other than a demand for a response

Before you would "talk," you demanded that I limit you to just one of the Baptist dogmas you have been parroting and promoting about Baptism - that of Credobaptism (in a very narrow sense as you defined).

You demanded that I give my reasons for not accepting this dogma (which is by no means my responsibility but being nice, I agreed.)

I did exactly that in post 452 of https://christianityhaven.com/showthread.php?6921-Water-Baptism (and many times before)

There is MORE there than "only a demand to respond." Read post 452 here https://christianityhaven.com/showthread.php?6921-Water-Baptism

You stated you would reply and finally begin to give your apologetics.

I did what you demanded in post 452.

But .....

Perhaps we are left to wonder why....






.

 

[Albion]

I prefer to agree with both the assumption and perpetual virginity of the mother of our Lord but under pious opinion and not dogmatically. Biblically I see both Enoch and Elijah being assumed into heaven so there is biblical precedence for it. And the Lord gives His mother over to His disciple during His crucifixion showing to me she had no other offspring to care for her.
When in doubt I side with historic church traditions.

This one doesn't even rise to that level, all other considerations aside.

 

[atpollard]

You connected this thread to https://christianityhaven.com/showthread.php?6921-Water-Baptism
You specifically quoted ME in the opening post, from post 452 of https://christianityhaven.com/showthread.php?6921-Water-Baptism

Since you are determined to drag THIS topic down THAT path, here we go.
Yes I did QUOTE you here, however, no I did not link the topics.

I made a comment in passing to MC that was tangentially related to baptism that I was not Baptized as an adult Catholic because I could not accept their doctrine on Mary at the Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin and would not lie about accepting a doctrine that I disbelieved. It was a personal remark from someone who heard the Gospel in a Catholic Church to a Catholic about how that person almost became a Catholic and why the didn't.

In a topic on water baptism, you (Josiah) chose to reference that passing, personal remark and turn it into an attack on me and an accusation that I had no scriptural reason for my beliefs about the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Rather than crapping all over a thread on water baptism with a discussion of Mary, her Blessed Virginity and her Assumption, I respected the thread on baptism and moved just your comment on my lack of belief in the assumption to a new topic. I have both noted and commented that you have not had the same courtesy with this topic and have insisted in making the topic on the Assumption all about my lack of response to your posts on the topic of Baptism.

If I had wished to create a linked topic, for example if I wanted to split MennoSota's verses to a new topic to post "observations" like he requested we post, then I am fully capable of posting a opening quote with a link directly to the source. It was a deliberate choice not to post such a link on your opening quote since your comment and my response have NOTHING to do with Baptism.

Before you would "talk," you demanded that I limit you to just one of the Baptist dogmas you have been parroting and promoting about Baptism - that of Credobaptism (in a very narrow sense as you defined).
You demanded that I give my reasons for not accepting this dogma (which is by no means my responsibility but being nice, I agreed.)
I did exactly that in post 452 of https://christianityhaven.com/showthread.php?6921-Water-Baptism (and many times before)
There is MORE there than "only a demand to respond." Read post 452 here https://christianityhaven.com/showthread.php?6921-Water-Baptism
You stated you would reply and finally begin to give your apologetics.
I did what you demanded in post 452.
But .....

Perhaps we are left to wonder why....

It is always time to be polite, until it isn't time to be polite any more. By stalking me to another topic with this same accusation, you force me into the position where it is time to stop playing nice and start taking straight.

Throughout that entire Baptism topic you have been bombarding me with a steady stream of walls of text making long lists of demands that I present texts that prove what YOU CLAIM I believe ... since as you state over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over everything we "anti-padeobaptists" claim is the invention of a few "radical 16th Century Anabaptists". The only problem with your demand is that we do not believe what you insist on claiming that we believe, so it seems unfair to demand that we produce scripture that says something we do not believe is true.

We believe in a "believers baptism", which means that we believe that those who are baptized should already believe the Gospel. If you demanded that we produce verses that say that, we would. Instead you demand verses that state a minimum age for baptism. We don't claim a minimum age, we claim those baptized should first believe the Gospel.

To end this wall of text that could not be responded to, I set conditions for MY RESPONSE. You are under no more obligation to meet my conditions than I am under to respond to walls of demands about things that I do not believe. However, if you want to have a conversation (that means you talk and I listen, then I talk and you listen, then we repeat ... that is a conversation) then here were my conditions:

1. Stop using the word Anabaptist. (This is a simple matter of the fact that I am not a 16th Century Anabaptists and will not defend their beliefs ... talk to me about MY 21st Century Credobaptist beliefs)

2. Discuss ONE point at a time. (I do not wish to argue about your entire wall of topics all at once. Choose one topic at a time to discuss.)
[You utterly failed to comply with condition #2. Your post #451 contains TWO topics and is immediately followed by post #452 with at least one more topic. Post #452 may contain more than I topic, I didn't finish reading it since I was looking for ONE topic to discuss and you had already pressed TWO topics forward.]

3. I requested that you present a scripture rather than just offering opinions. (I want to talk about doctrine from a foundation of Sola Scriptura. I want to discuss what the Bible actually says. I don't mind talking about lots of scriptures, but I am more comfortable looking at them one at a time and in their original context.)
[You utterly failed to comply with condition #3. Neither post #451 nor #452 contains even a single scripture. You left us with nothing to discuss except YOUR OPINIONS.]

4. I requested that you explain how the scripture supports or disproves whatever the point we were discussing was. (The conversation and the scripture should be about whatever the topic we are discussing is about.)
[You utterly failed to comply with condition #4. No scripture means that you cannot discuss what God says about the topic.]

In spite of the fact the only request that I made that you have come close to complying with was to stop saying "Anabaptist" (although you have started to discuss 16th Century Credobaptists now, so you are still missing the point ... this is not the 16th Century), I have made an effort to have a conversation with you. I accepted the first point raised in Josiah's post #451 as a topic, since it was the first point raised. I invited Josiah to bring up his other points after we were finished conversing about "Age restrictions for baptism". I LISTENED to what Josiah said. I responded to what Josiah said. Since Josiah presented no scripture, I could not discuss the verse that Josiah had chosen.

I then presented the first baptism of the new Church ... following Jesus' Ascension, at Pentecost and found in Acts chapter 2. I stated MY 21st Century Credobaptist beliefs on baptism and discussed what I saw revealed in the scripture from Acts 2 that I chose to quote to continue our discussion. My hope and expectation was that my courtesy and effort would be reciprocated and Josiah would at least bother to read my response and comment based on either my stated beliefs or the quoted scripture on baptism.

Instead I get relentless accusations of having IGNORED him and stalking across topics demanding I respond to his next post.

So for the LAST time, Josiah:

I never insisted that you talk about Credobaptism, I insisted that you stop telling me that I am an Anabaptist and demanding that I prove 16th Century beliefs that I do not hold. I cannot and I will not.
I will NEVER discuss post 452, because I already responded to the FIRST POINT in post #451. If you ever decide you want to have a conversation, post #160 is waiting patiently for you to LISTEN and respond, before you TALK and I listen. Until we have finished conversing about "required age for baptism", there is no point in my reading any posts of yours about anything else.

 

[Albion]

1. Stop using the word Anabaptist. (This is a simple matter of the fact that I am not a 16th Century Anabaptists and will not defend their beliefs ... talk to me about MY 21st Century Credobaptist beliefs)

But the Anabaptists invented the Credobaptism POV, and all the churches that hold to it today are their spiritual descendants--the Baptists, Disciples of Christ, etc. So there is nothing wrong with the word, and it is more accurate than any other that might be used in its place. It does not imply that you are Amish or Mennonite or anything like that, if this is what you are worried about.

 

[atpollard]

But the Anabaptists invented the Credobaptism POV, and all the churches that hold to it today are their spiritual descendants--the Baptists, Disciples of Christ, etc. So there is nothing wrong with the word, and it is more accurate than any other that might be used in its place. It does not imply that you are Amish or Mennonite or anything like that, if this is what you are worried about.

“I insisted that you stop telling me that I am an Anabaptist and demanding that I prove 16th Century beliefs that I do not hold. I cannot and I will not.”
:hand:

 

[MennoSota]

If the Bible didn't say it, it must be good and true.
Therefore since the Bible doesn't say it, Mary must have enjoyed having sex with her husband, Joseph, on a nightly basis. She honored her God with a quiver full of children produced from the God glorifying sexual exploits she had with Joseph.
Since the Bible doesn't say otherwise, I therefore rejoice in Mary's sexual freedom that came from her deep faith in obedience to God.
All Godly married women follow the same path as Mary, praising God in their sexual relationship which God blessed them with in providing a husband.
May Mary continue to point the way to joyous sex within the marriage covenant.
Since the Bible does not say otherwise, it must be good.

 

[atpollard]

If the Bible didn't say it, it must be good and true.
Therefore since the Bible doesn't say it, Mary must have enjoyed having sex with her husband, Joseph, on a nightly basis. She honored her God with a quiver full of children produced from the God glorifying sexual exploits she had with Joseph.
Since the Bible doesn't say otherwise, I therefore rejoice in Mary's sexual freedom that came from her deep faith in obedience to God.
All Godly married women follow the same path as Mary, praising God in their sexual relationship which God blessed them with in providing a husband.
May Mary continue to point the way to joyous sex within the marriage covenant.
Since the Bible does not say otherwise, it must be good.

Perhaps a biblical word study on “husband”, “wife” and “marriage” would give you a better definition of God’s plan for a husband and wife. If your sarcasm was directed at me, I only assume that a godly husband and a godly wife had a godly marriage. I’ll leave it to you to find the scripture for yourself that defines that relationship.

[cough] ... brothers ... [cough]

 

[MennoSota]

Perhaps a biblical word study on “husband”, “wife” and “marriage” would give you a better definition of God’s plan for a husband and wife. If your sarcasm was directed at me, I only assume that a godly husband and a godly wife had a godly marriage. I’ll leave it to you to find the scripture for yourself that defines that relationship.

[cough] ... brothers ... [cough]

My sarcasm is not pointed at you. However, the Puritans were a frisky bunch!

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=394]MennoSota[/MENTION]

If the Bible didn't say it, it must be good and true.

Just like "Thou canst NOT baptize any until they hath celebrated their Xth birthday?" (Baptist Dogma of Anti-Paedobaptism)

Just like, "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless they hath proven they are among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died?"

Just like, "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they prove they have FIRST chosen Jesus as their personal Savior?" (Baptist Dogma of Credobaptism)

Just like, "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless they art fully immersed in and under water - all other means are sinful?" (Baptist Dogma of Immersion Only)

Just like, "Jesus did NOT die for all but rather for ONLY SOME?"

Just like, "God desires and causes most people to fry eternally in hell and is gloried by that?"

Just like, "If one has faith at ANY moment in their life they will go to heaven even if they repudiate Jesus and reject the Gospel?"


Hummmmm......



You demand that we "scrap" ALL denomination tradition (how Baptists or Catholics or Lutherans or Calvinists understand things, interpret things) BUT this seems to apply to all but views YOU like, you perfect parrot at least some of the traditions of Calvinists and Baptists while SHOUTING, DEMANDING that we can't do that, it must be "scraped."

You demand that we ONLY consider what the Bible actually states. And yet when you are asked to present Scriptures that state what you claim, you can't. You imply that it might be implied or meant (if the Holy Spirit had just been more accurate or complete) but y0u just can't find the verse.

You need to stop. Think. A little honesty and humility are in order. Either you need to start doing yourself what you demand of others, or you need to permit others to do what you do. Otherwise, well, can you spell hypocrisy?"







.

 

[Josiah]

I could not accept their doctrine on Mary at the Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin

Correct. In the Baptist thread you referenced, you QUOTE me noting that you reject the Dogma of the Assumption of Mary, but had NOT ONE VERSE that shows it is wrong, your (correct) approach is that it is not up to those who don't teach something to prove anything, it is up to the one teaching and promoting it to show it is true. That's how it works, according to you. No one has to prove some new denominational invention (Like the Assumption of Mary or Credobaptism or Jesus Died for Only Some"), it is not the role of others to prove it wrong, it is the role of the inventors and promoters to prove it is true.

Relevant because you refuse to show that Credobaptism is true. You want ME to prove it's false. I did as you demanded: give my reasons for NOT accepting this Anabaptist invention (even though that is NOT my role according to you) with your promise you'd FINALLY discuss the Scriptures that teach it, but.... INSTEAD, you ran here in a different forum and thread to discuss neither Credobaptism or the Assumption of Mary. We can all wonder why.






.

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=334]atpollard[/MENTION]

demands that I present texts that prove what YOU CLAIM I believe

YOU demanded that the discussion be limited to "ONE topic."
YOU demanded that that topic be Credobaptism.
YOU defined the dogma.

I agreed to all your demands.
I agreed to the definition YOU gave (verbatim)


YOU demanded I take the "first step" in the discussion (of the topic you've been promoting since you came here), I MUST "take the first step" by presented why I don't accept this invention (even though you don't believe it's MY role to show it wrong). And I did. It's post 452 of that thread,

You ignored it.
You always have.
You always will.

I will NEVER discuss post 452

.... of THAT we are all certain.


We can draw our own conclusions as to why.

I requested that you present scripture rather than just offering opinions

Tell you what, I'll quote the Scripture that says, "One need NOT previously in chronological time state that they hath chosen Jesus as their personal Savior before the prohibition to baptize is lifted" when you quote the verse, "Mary was NOT assumed into heaven" or "Mary had lots of great sex after Jesus was born" or "the Pope is not infallible." Deal?


THIS is why I made the comment in post 452 that you quoted in the opening post here. It's about your absurd rubric, one you yourself don't accept. You reject the Assumption of Mary without one verse that states she was NOT assumed into heaven (in fact here you prove you have NOTHING in the Bible that even remotely implies it's not true). The universal rubric in epistemology is that the one with the position has the role of showing it to be true, it is not the role of others to show it is wrong. YOU KNOW THIS. You are playing a silly game and you got called on it. If Bob posted, "There are little purple people eaters living on Mars" that is NOT a dogmatic fact unless someone can prove it wrong, nor is it ANYONE'S role to prove it wrong, it's Bob's responsibility to prove it true. You know this. You operate in this way. But you have a dogma - yes invented in the late 16th Century by the Anabaptists, not by you in the 21st Century. But you are parroting it, you are claiming it's true, the burden is yours. Not mine.


See post 452 here https://christianityhaven.com/showthread.php?6921-Water-Baptism

We believe in a "believers baptism", which means that we believe that those who are baptized should already believe the Gospel. If you demanded that we produce verses that say that, we would.

Many of us have done that MANY times.

See post 452 here https://christianityhaven.com/showthread.php?6921-Water-Baptism

You refuse.


And yes, I r3ealize that NOW you want to distance yourself and not address all the other unique new Baptism dogmas you have been promoting and that Baptists teach. You've decided it best to distance yourself from all but one. You stand alone in this, but I agreed to this.

See post 452 here https://christianityhaven.com/showthread.php?6921-Water-Baptism

Stop using the word Anabaptist. (This is a simple matter of the fact that I am not a 16th Century Anabaptists and will not defend their beliefs ... talk to me about MY 21st Century Credobaptist beliefs)

It IS an Anabaptist invention. Sorry, it's just history. I don't know why you want to re-write history. You can't change history. You didn't invent this dogma in the 21st Century, that's just silly. And just a diversion.

Discuss ONE point at a time. Choose one topic to discuss.)

YOU demanded that I forget all the other baptism dogmas of the Baptists (you don't want to "go there" anymore) - and I respected that (I quite understand why you don't want to discuss if those are true), you demanded I can only address Credobaptism and ONLY as YOU define it. And I agree. You claimed THEN you would present the Scriptures that prove it true. But

See post 452 https://christianityhaven.com/showthread.php?6921-Water-Baptism

I insisted that you stop telling me that I am an Anabaptist

More diversion. As everyone knows, I NEVER called you an Anabaptist. Which is why you could not quote me saying it. "Attack the person if you cannot address the point."

What I said is that the list of baptism dogmas you echo are inventions of the Anabaptists. It is a historical fact. My point is the lack of history and ecumenism; these dogmas are very late denominational tradition (what MennoSota DEMANDS be entirely ignored). A point you have not challenged, only that you personally don't belong to a denomination with "Baptist" in it's moniker. Okay. I believe you. I never said otherwise. You just want to divert the discussion away from proving these dogmas correct (most of which you now wish to be "off table" since you are only willing to discuss Credobaptism in the narrow sense you permit and with the definition you give, which I agreed to.






.

 

[JRT]

The accretion of legend, doctrine and dogma over the centuries reminds me of a parable I came across years ago.

Parable: THE SPRING OF LIVING WATERS by Ira Progoff

There was once a vast, rocky wilderness, void of all vegetation but the hardiest thorns and briars. Through the middle of the desert stretched a rough highway along which the whole of humanity was making its pilgrimage. They straggled along footsore and thirsty, tired and frightened by a myriad of nameless fears.

But at one point along the way a clear spring of running water bubbled up out of the naked rock. No one knows who first discovered it; that secret has long been lost. Yet for countless generations the people journeying along the road stopped to refresh themselves there. And as they did so, they found to their surprise and delight that the waters not only slaked their thirst, but satisfied deeper needs as well. Somehow in drinking at that source they found their minds and bodies healed, their hopes and courage growing strong again. Life became rich with fresh meaning. They found they could pick up their various burdens and take to the way once more with new hearts. They called the spot “the place of living waters” and the spring itself, “the water of life.”

Now, as time went on various people began to roll up boulders around the spring as monuments of gratitude. As the generations and centuries passed, these monuments became more elaborate and ornate, until at last the spring was totally enclosed, arched over by a great fortress-like cathedral and protected by high stone walls. A special caste of men, with special robes and a language all their own, came into being to set rules for preserving the purity of the well. Access was no longer free to all, and disagreements as to who could drink there, and when, and how, sometimes grew so bitter that wars were fought over them.

The victors always put up more monuments and safeguards in gratitude for winning, and so it was that, as the years rolled by, the spring itself was bricked over and lost from view. No one remembered when exactly it was done or by whom. But when the pilgrims complained about the loss, and many were found fainting or even near death on the road, those now in charge either mocked their cries or simply ignored them. Beautiful ceremonies were carried out inside the holy place to celebrate what the well had done for pilgrims many years before, while at the very gates people were dying of thirst.

Eventually other water was piped in, at great expense, from distant places, but it seemed a mere shadow compared to the reality that once had been there for all to enjoy. From time to time strange men came in from the wilderness saying that those who guarded the ancient well should “repent” and tear away all the obstruction so that the masses might drink and be restored. Later they would be called prophets and honored greatly in the shrine. But at the moment of their protest they were rejected. Indeed many were put to death.

And so in the end the vast majority of people who journeyed along that route avoided the now sacred “place of the living waters” and survived whatever way they could. Many, when they passed the shrine and recalled the stories they had heard in youth about the hidden spring, were seized with nostalgia and longings too deep to utter. Others struggled on embittered by cynical doubt that the healing waters had ever existed. But sometimes in the night when all the chanting and ceremonies were stilled, those few pilgrims who stole into the shrine to rest for a few moments in some corner out of sight were sure they could hear an almost miraculous sound. From somewhere deep under the foundations of the great rock structure there came the faint echo of running water. And their eyes would brim with tears.