Robert Sungenis and the Bodily Assumption of Mary

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line

The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence

Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix reformed

Baptist Church This is a live program and we invite your participation. If you'd like to talk with dr.

White call now at 602 973 460 to or toll -free across the

United States. It's 1 877 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 And now with today's topic here is

James white and welcome to the dividing line on a Tuesday morning Probably won't be taking phone calls today have much to do and not enough time to do it probably

Extending well, definitely extending into the next program as well on Thursday Lord willing

We could go yesterday on the CARM radio program Matt slick and Robertson Janice got together and I've had a lot of people contacting me a lot of people's questions about what was said about the the information that was shared and a lot of questions about how to answer some of the things were raised by Robertson Janice and so I want to go through this and I do so without any animosity whatsoever toward Matt slick

I just very very clear that from the very beginning of the program that Matt did not know who

Robertson Janice is or was and that led to some I think serious problems

Because Robertson Janice has been engaging in debates for a long long time In fact, if you go to YouTube or go to our website, you will see that I have debated

Robertson Janice five times One was one of the few two -man debates

I have done That was at Boston College back in the mid 90s.

I remember that well Mr. Zins and myself took on Robertson Janice and Scott Butler on the subject of the papacy

That was a very very interesting debate there at Boston College We've debated up in in Salt Lake City was the last time that we debated a number of years ago

I believe that was also on the subject of the mass that time We debated on Long Island.

We did a debate on the subject of The mass there and the next year on justification

The mass debate was one of the nastiest debates I've ever been in In fact, if you want to go to my youtube channel and look up when you're did when your debate opponent gets nasty

You will pull up some clips from that particular encounter Thankfully the debate on justification was a little less

Rankerous shall we say and so Bob's and Janice is well -known amongst

Roman Catholic apologists He was one of three people who were representing the

Roman Catholic side in the great debates back And I believe 1994 1993 in Los Angeles When He and Patrick Madrid and a fellow by name

Martian er debated Rod Rosenblatt and Michael Horton and Robert Godfrey Is a two -day debate on sola scriptura and on sola fide

The best I can say is thankfully sola fide went better than sola scriptura did And so he has written a number of books.

I have one in my hand called not by scripture alone Actually, he didn't write this there was there was a number of other people that also contributed to this, but he was one of the editors and He wrote a number of chapters.

Anyways, at least two of the major chapters, but he's also written written not by bread alone Not by faith alone.

The problem is that his next book should probably just be titled alone period

Because Robertson Janice is no longer in the mainstream of Roman Catholic apologetics It's one of the reasons that I have not debated him in a long time.

I will be debating him three times this fall Mainly because we can't get any of the mainline apologists to debate anymore

Witness our recent encounter with Tim Staples and how excited Catholic answers has been to make that debate available to their listeners

And how excited? Tim Staples has been to respond to the many emails I've sent to him, which means he hasn't responded at all but the point is that Robertson Janice for a long time was one of the up -and -coming stars a

Convert from well from a number of different things interestingly enough an MA in theology from Westminster Theological Seminary and then he went to work with Harold Camping.

Yes. He worked for Harold Camping for a number of years now. This was a little bit before Harold Camping got completely loony

But still rather interesting and in fact his his story is is one of well, it's very interesting he goes from one group to another group to another group and If I'm recalling correctly and I may be wrong about this

But I think there was even a stint in the International Churches of Christ if I recall I could be wrong about that but that's that's

Seems familiar to me, but be that as it may the fact is once he he converted

He was you know in this rock and friendly with Catholic answers. He was I need EWTN And then thing the wheels start falling off and Basically In my opinion

Bob St. Janice is still a Protestant at heart And what I what I mean by that is that as we listen to the encounter between himself and Matt slick

He will at one point say look Matt. I'm a Catholic apologist. I know what this means

Well there there is no such office as Catholic apologist Bob St. Janice is not an official of the

Roman Catholic Church in any way. He's not a priest He's not a bishop. He's not part of the Magisterium the

Magisterium as far as I know has never assigned him to any position of leadership or Biblical theology or anything like that and today there are a number of Catholic apologists that Really are significantly more down on Bob St.

Janice Than People outside of the Roman Catholic realm would be

I know that Mark Shea and he don't get along very well at all and That's not overly surprising but in particular they point to two areas of Bob St.

Janice's theology that they find to be extremely problematic and that is he's a geocentrist

Bob St. Janice believes that the the Sun Circles around the earth and that the earth is the center of the universe that everything circles around the universe that the

Roman Catholic Church was was wrong to have condemned Galileo You know back in the olden days and so on and so forth and if you want to Do that dance with him you can go ahead and do that dance with him because he he will defend it till the cows come

Home, but he is a geocentrist And there are geocentrists who are non Roman Catholics by the way

I brought this up once and found out that someone who at that time was a regular in our chat channel was a geocentrist and So I'm like, okay.

Well, all right, not gonna get into that one but also He his views on the

Jews is very much out of line with the current leadership of the Roman Catholic Magisterium shall we say and so this has caused all sorts of difficulties all sorts of issues and Has led to his

Marginalization hence I my statement that his next book should be just titled alone because he pretty much is alone

He's no longer on EWTN. You don't find him on In any of the mainstream Roman Catholic apologetics venues, etc, etc

So I guess I I have the appropriate right to say that it does seem that the constant

Argumentation provided Roman Catholics against sola scriptura about how divided Protestants are is somewhat refuted by the very state of Roman Catholic apologetics itself looking at people like Jerry Matta ticks and Bob St Janice and things like that now now mr.

St. Janice. Dr. St. Janice will argue very strongly that he is is absolutely orthodox and Even more orthodox than his critics.

That's fine I leave that to them to argue It only demonstrates that their arguments against sola scriptura make no sense whatsoever.

But the fact the matter is That there is this division that exists and he is not from his own profession a set a vacant ist as Jerry Matta ticks is some people have tried to Say that he is but he disagrees with that and again, that's fine, too

I'll let those guys on that side of the fence fight that one out But the point is that there are a lot of people who are troubled by St.

Janice's unique views and Yet his material especially his material in his books against sola fide and against sola scriptura are

Widely used by Catholic apologists every single day I've had many a

Catholic say well, you know I it's a shame about what's happened Bob St. Janice because I thought it was really good and I found his material really useful and and part of that is because he will readily use the

Greek language and he He will throw out a lot of material that the other

Catholic apologists are not quite as Quick to do so or comfortable doing so and he exudes confidence

He really does and we'll see that in his encounter with Matt slick So I think my my biggest criticism for for Matt here is

I think Matt did real well for not knowing what he was walking into I don't

I don't know how you bring someone on to your program and not realize that the man has years of experience in Roman Catholic apologetics and has

Experience in Greek and so on and so forth. He's published books that are big huge books and he's very happy They're big huge books.

In fact, he will even mention how many pages there are in his books in the encounter,

I don't I don't know how you you bring Catholic apologists on and you're just completely unaware of who they are what they've done the debates they've done and things like that that leads to well bad things and So that's one of the reasons we're looking at this

But I think it did real good for not I mean if if I had never prepared to debate Bob St.

Janice, it would be ugly But that's why I'm Relistening to all the previous debates.

I've done with Bob St. Janice and looking at his website and downloading stuff and doing that long hours of preparation

For the debates we have coming up this fall. That's just simply something you have to do.

It's it's necessary. So with that Let's let's start listening to the encounter.

I'm gonna be stopping starting There's important stuff to be what I want this to do is to edify the Saints. It seems

That yes, man talk about getting old It seems that a lot of folks who have become involved with the ministry listening to the dividing line

Aren't really familiar with what I did pre 2000 or so. It's sort of like what have you done lately and so Debates that took place a long time ago and I've done about 36

Moderated public debates around three dozen moderate public debates with Roman Catholic apologists 13 the geriatrics 5 with Robertson Janice Patrick Madrid, etc, etc

But that was a while back and for some reason, you know A lot of people have contacted me are raising questions like yeah

But I covered that in my debate with some Janice or we've discussed that before, you know, we had we had the great.

Mr Xdebacle with pops and jenna's you can go back and look at the blog on on some of that stuff and There's not familiar with it.

Oh, really you you debated Robertson Janice, and I guess it's a good example of you know

What have you done for me lately? It's not that this stuff isn't available it is And the issues haven't changed folks

I mean The one thing that you can definitely fault Modern Roman Catholic apologists for is that they just keep saying the same things over and over again

They almost never in fact That's one of the things that I will give some Jenna some props for is is he's about the only one who tries to come up with something new

The the rest of them that are just you know, you know fat and happy You know in in their enclaves

Just keep saying the same things over and over again And at least Bob's and Janice does try to come up with some new things

And so you got to give him some some props on that level whether they are, you know the same things the magisterium would say is that's that's where the

Catholics have a problem with him, but You know at least to try so I want this to be edifying I'm gonna be we're gonna be looking at solo script

Torah. We're gonna be looking at tradition We're gonna looking at the bodily assumption Mary We're looking at early church history all the stuff that you need to deal with when you deal with the assertions that Roman Catholic apologists make so let's

Get started having burned the first 15 minutes on background information let's let's dive into it and Listen to the encounter our guest a dr.

Sue Janice. Is that right? Sun Janice, you know, I apologize Man, that's what

I thought it was and then one of the guys wrote something different Okay, well my bed my name's easier to say, you know slick

I'd rather have some Janice Well when your book to skinny kid like I was going to a lot of different schools then yeah, you don't want my name

But that's the way it goes So thank you for coming on the show. I really appreciate it and You are a

Roman Catholic, right? Yes, and you are a hardcore Roman Catholic I guess you would say that and you like to defend the

Christian faith or excuse me the Roman Catholic faith Also, it's the Christian faith, okay, and I don't know if you read the stuff of my view on Roman Catholicism I don't want to say, you know,

I've never heard of you Matt, but somebody you're a guy that Now let me just pause right there.

So there I know that you can't always avoid this. All right,

I Have so many times been on the receiving end of the

I don't have a clue who you are stuff That that I'm real sensitive to it, you know,

I mean I understand there are times I I do radio programs I've done national radio programs and people call in and Well good example the example

I've given when I was on the the radio program up in Salt Lake City and It be why you professor calls in and starts throwing out textual variants in in the

Hebrew text Thankfully I had my critical Hebrew text with me at the time, but I You know, there's not much you can do about that You just you just have to try to be as widely prepared as you can.

But when you have the opportunity actually to prepare It just amazes me when you know, it was it was similar to the radio program

I listened to I think it was on the infidel guy when Robert Price ran into Bob Maury and Neither one of them had a clue

So that means you haven't read anything. They've said you don't have any idea what their unique perspectives are nothing

And so, you know, it's it's just an absolute It's gonna lead to a disaster

For one one direction or the other it's it's not the best thing to have happen Obviously the best thing to have happen is when both sides are actually prepared

For this specific position that the other person is gonna be presenting. Otherwise, you're spending all sorts of time

Arguing about definition saying I didn't say that Yes, you did say that because because if someone hasn't listened to you before They're gonna have to read into what you say some type of content that may or may not be accurate and I have to deal with that all the time

I try to avoid that with my opponents because I take the time to Study what my opponents believe try to listen to them if they've written anything or if they've you know

If I can get recordings and things like that, sometimes I can't you know, that's what I did not like about what happened

In the arrangements of that sudden debate the second night in Detroit a few weeks ago you just bring in a

Muslim I've never even heard of this guy never read a word He said have no idea what his background is and and 60 seconds for you supposed to start

Oh, this guy's gonna gonna fill in what? It's you know, it was it wasn't difficult to respond to the guy but the point is

That could really be bad and I just think wisdom would say you try to avoid it Put together this program and talk to me yesterday and led me to your website.

So I looked at a couple things So I just have to say I looked at a couple YouTube videos of you and Catholicism So I don't know too much about you, but I think

I know enough to know we know where you're coming from, right? Basically, I don't consider

Roman Catholicism to be Christian No offense neither for a while because I was a

Protestant for 18 years Before I came back to the Catholic Church So I understand why you feel that way, yeah,

I definitely Just by the way, some Genesis testimony is in the first edition of surprised by truth and If I recall correctly,

I think there is an article responding to his claims In the old

Roman Catholic section of the website if I recall correctly and we're going back in the 90s here. So It That this was the primary thing we were doing for a long time was dealing with with Roman Catholicism Definitely believe it's it's apostate.

I don't mean to be offensive, but I don't leave us Christian And I believe that Roman Catholics who believe official Roman Catholic theology are going to be lost and go to hell their judgment and you know,

I I don't know if you how Clearly you hold to official Roman Catholic theology You know reboot in my laptop.

So when it gets noisy here in a minute, you'll know why You know official Roman Catholic theology says if you're outside the

Catholic Church You're lost. So I don't know if you hold of that or not, but That's what the old councils were saying

Actually, it says from Benedict or from Boniface the eighth and Eugene the fourth It says if you remain outside the

Catholic Church, you cannot be saved It doesn't mean that if you're not a member full -fledged of the Catholic Church, you cannot be saved, right?

Yeah, I will definitely the rest of my life Absolutely remain outside the Roman Catholic Church, and I will also advocate that everybody leave the

Roman Catholic Church and never go to it That's my position. So I guess I'm gonna be lost to go to hell, right? Well, usually what

I ask people to do is to hold their conclusions until after the debate is over And maybe you might change your mind after we discuss these things.

Yeah. Yeah. Well, that's fine I like people different opinions on the show. I really appreciate that and we were supposed to talk tonight about the assumption of Mary and And maybe you could just tell people what that is and why you believe it

Let me get into now. Let me just stop for a moment. I My assumption is

Assumption my assumption that the subject of the assumption is because I am going to be debating

Syngenis on the assumption in September I I don't know if that's what was behind the thinking of the arranging of that topic.

I I Do not know but Very useful for me to to find out exactly how

Bob's gonna approach this Be It really is impossible to defend historically you you just simply have to assert

Rome's ultimate Dogmatic authority and attacks all scripture. It's the only way to defend the assumptions

It's clearly not a part of the tradition of the church if tradition has anything to do with anything

They believe the first 500 years But we'll get into that in a few moments, but I think that's probably where the subject comes from.

But again at least give Dr. Syngenis props for this He's the only person

I know of on that side of the Tiber River That would even attempt to defend this dogma.

We can't get Roman Catholics To defend this dogma they they'll they'll be willing to talk about Marian dogmas as a whole

But they recognize that the assumption of Mary is built upon an entire complex of preceding concepts especially in the development of Marian dogma over the over the centuries and so you know to go to somebody's radio program and And defend that Okay, all right takes takes a takes a little bit of work there well what it is is that at the end of Mary's life

What happened to her body and soul and the church believes that her body and soul were assumed into heaven?

Let me just let me explain that by making a distinction between assumed and ascension because we believe that Jesus ascended into heaven as Acts chapter 1 teaches

Mary was assumed Being that someone else took power over her and took her to heaven whereas Jesus ascended by his own divine power

I assume that he makes that distinction because of the repeated Accusation one that certainly

I would make and will make That there is a purposeful Paralleling in the person of Mary of the unique offices miracles and and the special truths about who

Jesus Christ is immaculate conception virgin birth Vital assumption ascension, etc.

Etc. There's an entire chart you can put together where Rome has paralleled in Mary What is actually unique to Jesus and all anybody has to do is pick up?

Liguri's the glories of Mary and Read through it a little while to realize that for Christians You just take out the word

Mary put in the name Jesus and it would be a book of praise Jesus But this is actually to Mary so There is obviously grave concern in that area

But we do believe that is what happened to Mary. We believe this Because the church teaches it and the church is one of our authorities along with scripture and tradition

We have no problem believing it because the scripture itself Talks about various instances where the bodies of human beings were assumed into heaven like Elijah, for example

There's no place in the Bible that rejects being assumed into heaven now Immediately start following the argumentation here for us

For something to be dogmatically true. Remember Rome has defined this as a dogma You cannot be a faithful Roman Catholic and reject this now.

I'm not saying that aren't millions of People who call themselves Roman Catholics who just chuckle at these things

But the official position of the church is this is a dogma There's a difference between a dogma and a doctrine for example

Mary as Co -redemptrix and co -mediatrix with Christ has been taught as a doctrine by Popes for over a hundred years

But it's not a dogma. That is a dogma is Definitional to the faith you cannot deny this and remain in the faith

The bodily assumption of Mary was defined as a dogma within the life of people that we all know these days

Not within my life, but to not all that long before I was born and as such

Cannot be questioned. It is a to use to use the phraseology of Jerry Matatek's and I think he was quite right about this

The very same authority that tells you that Jesus rose from the dead tells you that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven

Do you have the exact same basis for believing the resurrection of Jesus you have for believing the assumption of Mary?

It's a part of the gospel itself and This is one of the great tragedies and one of the great heresies of Rome is that Rome has added to the gospel these these these myths

It's amazing that Rome cannot tell you with certainty what the Bible teaches about predestination election But it can tell with certainty that Mary was bodily assumed in heaven that this just demonstrates what happens

When you abandon sola scriptura and you embrace an authority outside of that which they honest us outside of that which is

God breathed It is it is truly amazing, but notice the argumentation.

Well, there's nothing in the Bible against it A dogma it just even a concept that is not even going to be become well known for four or five hundred years down the road

To say well, the Bible doesn't say anything against it and you know, you God certainly can assume people into heaven. Well Yeah, he can

But I'm reminded the words of Tertullian from long ago In his against Praxeus when he said but if we choose to apply this principle so extravagantly and harshly in our capricious

Imaginations we met we may then make out God to have done anything We please on the ground that it is not impossible for him to do it

We must not however because he is able to do all things suppose that he has actually done what he has not done

But we must inquire whether he has really done it It will be your duty however to adduce your proofs out of scripture as plainly as we do so there you have some words that Roberts and Janice needs to listen to Because in just a little while you're gonna hear

Matt Slick saying so where does the Bible do is what I don't need to show you that and we'll get into that but This this needs to be understood this kind of argumentation.

Well, it's fitting for God to have done this for the mother of God, etc Etc. That is such a completely different perspective as to where you derive religious truth

Then that which is held by the Christian who holds that which is the honest us so, you know, we have no problem in Accepting that as a doctrine and it's not as if it just came out of thin air, you know in the 20th century 1950 when

Pius XII declared it a doctrine of the church It's not as if he just woke up one morning and said oh, I think we ought to believe in the assumption of Mary This was a doctrine that was talked about among the patristic errors

Patristic in the patristic era I have to admit when you say the patristic errors the first time

I heard that I'm like, nope Nope, we were right the first time around on this one and in the medieval ages

Prior to the year 1000 there were many instances where they were already talking about Mary being assumed into heaven now

Notice what was just said prior to the year 1000 that's not the patristic era

This is a dogma that Comes from non -christian sources. It is first found in Gnostic sources

When it is when it first comes to the attention even of the the institutional

Roman Church is identified That the material out of which it comes is identified as heretical

You do not find early church fathers in the second century in the third century in the fourth century

Preaching on these things saying this is Christian belief in any way shape or form

To say that this is a patristic belief Is to make a mockery out of the phrase itself.

It just isn't and Roman Catholic sources admit this Roman Catholic scholarship Very much admits us.

We'll look at that in just a moment, but it hadn't been made into any doctrines yet And the groundswell of this continued throughout the

Second millennium until it finally reached a peak where the Pope had to make a decision

What he was going to do with this Common consensus of belief and he decided to make it a doctrine of the

Catholic Church So that's why we believe it because our authority declared it to us from the tradition that has been passed down to it

Now notice there is a claim that there is a tradition That has been passed down from whence does this tradition come?

This is where the challenge should have been made Where is this tradition found? Can you trace it to the

Apostles? And of course you cannot and and I don't know of any Roman Catholic apologists who would even try to do so It's it's just not possible

You can try to say well, you know, the records are incomplete or something like that but the reality is even when we start having extensive

Bodies of literature from the early church You do not find any of the early church leaders preaching on this subject

It's just it's just it's just not there. It's not a part now Remember when you talk about all sorts of other

Dogmas and doctrines that Rome is defined the basis of tradition They will go to these sources and yet these sources are silent at this point the making of the bodily assumption of Mary into a dogma is a

Demonstration that the wrong the modern Roman Catholic Church is not under the authority of either

Scripture or tradition in any meaningful use that term now, of course Rome's use the term tradition is

You know depends on which theologian you're talking to But any meaningful definition of that word would have to reflect what is found in the patristic period up to and including

Augustine and This is a dogma that simply isn't there

And we're gonna see that the the attempt to bring in Epiphanius and Ambrose and Augustine doesn't work and we'll

We'll see at a moment, but this is a clear illustration That the modern Roman Catholic Church, it's not scripture plus tradition plus magisterium.

It's just magisterium period end of discussion This is one of the greatest examples of what

I have called sola ecclesia the church alone not the church under the authority of scripture not the church under the authority of tradition

But sola ecclesia the church defines what scripture is and what scripture means The church defines what tradition is what tradition means and therefore it's not a three -legged stool.

It's a unicycle All right One church sola ecclesia being demonstrated right here

Okay, I'm just curious. What's the earliest attestation supposedly from the church fathers?

that Talks about the assumption of Mary. Well, we have Epiphanius and 377 discussing the issue

No, let's actually read Epiphanius This is this is why you have to challenge these statements because folks think about it.

I'm not making this up Rome has a long history of faking documents the entire papacy

Developed out of the the utilization of faked Documents the the donation of Constantine the pseudo is a

Dorian decretals The modern Roman papacy could never have developed historically without the use of those fake documents

The amazing thing is now they admit those are fake documents But the papacy is still there the foundation upon which it was built is gone been washed away by the sands of time but it's still there just hang out in midair and The the history of the utilization of especially fake patristic citations is long in the history of Roman Catholicism and in this situation as well

Let's look at what? Epiphanius actually said But if something gets 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 and no one knows

Now there is a huge difference between saying we don't know to the

Church of 1950 saying we know and in fact, we know so certainly we're gonna define it as a dog might add to the gospel

How's that? How's that? Got a challenge these things folks got a challenge

Show me the citations, let's read it in context. Let's read what goes before and what comes after We have

Ambrose and Augustine discussing the issue as well Ambrose and Augustine Discussing the issue as well.

What does that mean? What what what what does that what do you mean discussing the issue?

I went and put it back in the other room I had that huge book by Fitzgerald on Augustine big thing.

I mean it would it would be a doorstop and I looked up what Fitzgerald says about Augustine and he says he's absolutely silent on Anything related to it silent

Think of all the sermons and how many times Augustine talks with us silent

Never saw it as a dogma never didn't even doesn't even show any knowledge of such a concept None whatsoever remember

Augustine specifically taught against the concept of the defined immaculate conception of Mary oh, he he certainly had a high view of her, but not when it came to the idea of original sin and The later concept and there were seven popes that taught against that concept

This isn't tradition. This is stuff directly opposed to what's actually found in the materials of Church history

Don't believe me. Well, let's listen to a juman a juniper carol has to say in his book. Mary ology in These conditions we shall not ask patristic thought as some theologians still do today under one form or another to transmit to us with respect

To the assumption a truth received as such in the beginning and faithfully communicated the subsequent ages

Such an attitude would not fit the facts Patristic thought has not in this instance played the role of a sheer instrument of transmit and transmission

So here you have an expert in the subject saying dr. St. Janice is wrong and he's a

Roman Catholic one has written books in the subject. The other one has not

But we've already heard. Well, this this is tradition delivered to the church, but where is the evidence?

Where is the evidence remember when I debated gerrymanitics on this subject on Long Island first the great debate series

And I was going to Jerry. Can you show us in the seconds in the second? so can you show us anybody in the third century and Jerry's getting all flustered and frustrated and Finally, he says you can't expect them all to have talked about this and Jerry's I said to Jerry Jerry.

I'll take one You couldn't give me one Because it's just it's just not what people believed

It's mythology. It's projected back. This is the greatest example of Roman Catholic anachronism

And the only reason you really believe it is because you've just turned yourself over completely to the

Roman Magisterium And they say believe it and you say, okay, I believe it Where is this stuff found

Where where do we first find the idea of the Bible Assumption Mary in?

two primary sources Pseudo Melito, which is again a fake

Document Allegedly written by Melito Sardis Melito flourished at the end of the second century

It was not written by Melito Sardis come comes hundreds of years later And they would use the names of preceding people to try to add something to their own writing and in what's called the transitist literature the transits

Beatty Maria Heavily influenced both by non -orthodox

Gnostic sources That's where most of the Marian dogmas come from folks. Check it out for yourself the majority of nascent

Marian dogmas Including perpetual virginity immaculate conception things like that come from Gnostic sources.

They don't come from Scripture this isn't a thing the Apostles ever taught or believed and When we hear later on Robertson Janice quoting the text

Thessalonians About the tradition which you received whether by word of mouth or by scripture from us by letter from us

See it's that that's that oral tradition This is this is one place that he was not challenged and he must be challenged all through this

He simply assumed that the traditions of modern Rome were delivered by the Apostles prove it prove it

Show me somebody in the second century show me somebody in the third century Discuss why there are people who disagreed how can they have gotten it?

You can go folks. The early church is not friends to Rome the early church shows so clearly the failures of modern

Roman Catholic theology That's what really amazed

Roman Catholics when we first started debating when we first started debating Catholic answers They were on the offensive.

They were going out. They were challenging people to debates right and left. They're challenging I I know Jerry matic's debated to Calvary Chapel pastors in in Hawaii, for example, and he'd go in there and Just beat them senseless

Because they were depending upon secondary sources they knew nothing about the early church and When we started debating them they were shocked because we you know

When I when I did a Jerry matic's on the on the papacy we did seven over seven hours over two nights in 1993 during the papal visit to Denver in in them up in Colorado and Rich was there.

He could tell you he watched it When I opened up my book bags to debate

Jerry the second night on the early church My I still got the book bag. It's in the other room big huge one of those metal things and those big metal book bags

Everything I pulled out of there was nothing but the early church fathers. I had a stack of the early church fathers and They were not used to that That the early church is ours.

No, it isn't It's not quote -unquote mine either

I'm not trying to turn the early church writers into Reformed Baptists but they weren't

Roman Catholics either and The constant claim of Roman Catholic apologists.

Well, this is what's been believed for 2 ,000 years baloney You Cannot read the early church fathers and look at yourself in the mirror and say they believe what you believe

They didn't believe what you believe especially on the Marian dogmas so anyway

Getting a little mmm excited here Jennifer Carroll admits this he says the account of Pseudo Milito like the rest of the transitive literature is admittedly

Valueless as history as an historical report of Mary's death and corporeal assumption under that aspect

The historian is justified into dismissing it with a critical distaste but it was that kind of a historical material

Absolutely mythology that had the greatest impact on the development of Roman Catholic piety

And therefore eventually dogma Purgatory for example, what was the biggest input in the development of purgatory

Pope Gregory the Great? What was the biggest input in Pope Gregory the Great's theology of purgatory?

visions not scripture But stories the people told about things they had seen in the afterlife

Just go look at it. Look it up for yourself. You can see it if you just read his material That's where this stuff comes from and it's very very

Important to to recognize as we said Roman Catholic and channel Just note the

Catholic Encyclopedia article on the assumption appears to undermine St. Genesis claims regarding patristic evidence. Well, yes, that's exactly right and yet St.

Genesis will not be challenged on his claims in regards to Ambrose and Augustus They're they're debating back and forth whether Mary actually died or not.

They don't know they have difference of opinion on it If they don't know then they certainly didn't believe in a dogma called the assumption

Then we come to the later Was that that's your patristic evidence? And you know, we fully admit that the patristic evidence for the assumption of Mary is is is scant at best scant at best but we're told that it's defined for us on the authority of Scripture tradition the church.

No You have to get rid of both scripture and tradition and so when

Matt's gonna challenge him Well, where's the Bible teaches? He's I don't need to show you where the Bible teaches us but he hasn't shown us where tradition teaches it either and So what that demonstrates is

St. Genesis is operating on one leg of the three -legged stool Sola Ecclesia demonstrated to the max

But that's not where we lie our decision on whether Mary was assumed

We don't have any doctrine in the Catholic Church that says if there's no teaching in the father's on this then we know

It's not a doctrine of the church. That's just not what we've ever taught We have also

John now to catch that So from St. Genesis perspective, you know what we don't need scripture.

We don't need the early fathers You know so many times I've had Roman Catholics say oh, you know with Vincent, you know

What has been believed by all in all places this is what we believe and la la la la la la and and suggest the same

No No, we can come to that. We can go 1 ,900 years after the death of Christ and a the

Bishop of Rome can say this is part of the gospel believe it for hundreds of years

Martyrs died without ever having even heard of that idea But we can add to the gospel you see why solo scripture is important because once you abandon it the walls are down you can do whatever you want and That's exactly what

Rome has done John Demas in the 7th century Saying that Mary was assumed into heaven

There is dramatic of Constance and Opal and 733 Now remember the the 8th century is now three to four centuries after the transitive

Literature through which this comes into the consciousness of what calls itself Christianity at this point

Which by the way was originally put on what would be called the ancient index considered to be heretical by Pope Galatias but hey this stuff's popular and The piety of the people look that's where all the

Marian dogmas come from they come from emotional attachment not biblical revelation and in this case from Emotional attachment to theories and myths that come from outside the

Christian Church says the same thing and you know There's other examples I can give you so there is a pedigree of belief of the assumption of Mary No, there is not a pedigree of belief in the assumption of Mary in any meaningful

Definition of church history and the patristic sources none zero nada

Christian history So, how do you know if those? teachings by some of the patristics

Were are true. I mean, how do you know? I just because the Catholic Church, you know as a Roman Catholic you'll believe what the

Roman Catholic Church tells you I don't I just only believe the All I believe in the final authority of the

Word of God and I subject everything to it So, you know, I if it patristic for father says one thing

I have a saying, you know My church fathers can beat up your church father. Hold on one second And clear my throat there and so I can find you know patristic fathers will say different things but the

Roman Catholic Church Because of its multitudinous errors in other areas Mary worship purgatory synergistic

Soteriology sacerdotalism and things like that. I have a lot of problems with it But what how do you know that this doctrine is true?

Well, I mean you just go back into the early history of the church and you find out what happened now before Bob launches into his attack on sola scriptura, which is about what you're gonna get

Keep your eye on the ball Evidently the only Roman Catholic substantiation of positive presentation of dogma such as the

Assumption of Mary is the well your source isn't sufficient therefore by default you have to accept what we say and You need to hear this

You know, we've gone over this so many times in the past, but like I said There's one number years ago, we got a lot of a lot of listeners that weren't around and and you know,

I'm assuming that that people are looking at certain resources and if and if this if this discussion is

Making you go. Wow, there's fundamental things here. We're just about to get in the soul scriptura stuff If if you're going

I I need to do more study here Of the debates we've done over the years provide you with a lot of resources

The citations in them things like that, but there is a three volume set That we have on our website

That I don't care what aspect of Roman Catholicism you're dealing with it will always devolve back to Sola scriptura you have to be able to deal with their use of these scriptural passages their claims of these scriptural passages and if you haven't gotten the books and read the books

You need to it's called. Holy Scripture the pillar and ground of our faith three volumes

David King William Webster We watched part of that entire series written in our chat channel

Because because David King would post in the chat channel stuff They just written we would we could probably go back in our logs and would have most of it in electronic form at that point

Eleven hundred pages Bobs and Janice for years on his website said soon refuting these things soon to come never came

You know you'll find all sorts of nasty comments out there, but you won't find much in the way of serious interaction

You got to have those books. I've written books on Roman Catholicism. They're when Catholic controversy scripture alone is directly relevant 36 debates the material is there

Bill Webster's website Christian truth calm goldmine Eric Svensson isn't really active in this area anymore

But he did some great debates with Mitch Pacwa and with Jerry Matta ticks Especially on the

Marian dogmas and and the amount of the Immaculate Conception perpetual virginity issues The material is out there

You just have to do a little digging and some of us have been digging for a long long time some of us like David King are still digging and Our hats off to those who continue to dig the materials there

You just got to get hold of it, and if you're gonna be taking people like Bob's and Jenna's on you've got to have this

Stuff down. It's just absolutely necessary First Timothy 315 says the church is the pillar and ground of the truth

So there you have it right from the get -go. It doesn't say scripture is a pillar and ground of the truth It says the churches right there.

I stop him Right there, I don't let him say another word that is not what the passage says

This is a common abuse of the text. We've gone over this a number of times in the past, but we're gonna go over it again

The church is the pillar and ground of the truth. No question about it, but a he's assuming that's

Rome in the original context Paul was talking about the local church the local church over which

Timothy was a bishop was the pastor the elder He wasn't talking about some

Universal Church found that at this point in time didn't even have a single bishop in it

The Church of Rome did not develop the monarchical episcopate the single bishop Situation until around 140 at this point had a plurality of elders

But it was the local church, and what is a pillar and ground? Pillar and support what does a pillar and support do it holds something else up?

What's it holding up the truth? Where is it find the truth where's Church find the truth in God's Word? So it is it is a canard it is an abuse of this text

To say ah this means we should just listen to what Rome has to say that is nowhere near What the

Apostle Paul was communicating in that glorious text? But we need to be aware of those things

We need to know what the context of that of that is and be ready to challenge it instantly You have

Matthew 16 18 where Jesus gives the keys to Peter and the Apostles in Matthew 18 and If you will go and listen to the rather in -depth

Cross examination that I had with mr. St. Janice and mr. Butler on this very subject

I Pointed out If if you say that the keys alone are given to Peter And that's what

St. Janice said in our debate was that 1993 or 1994 somebody looked that up for me It was at Boston College, I don't remember the 93 or 94, but you asked mr.

St. Dr. St. Janice. I'm sorry at that time It was mr. St. Janice if you ask him about the keys and then

Revelation chapter 3 and The the use of Isaiah 22 as a foundation for saying that well what you know

What happens is in Matthew 16 only Peter receives the keys um a when did Peter get them?

The only Possible way that you can come up with an answer is in Matthew 18 18 and Peter receives them equally equally with the other

Apostles he will actually say a little bit later here that only Peter gets the keys only the

Apostles Just got the power to bind loose. Excuse me folks bind and loose without keys ever tried that They obviously go together even the early church interpreted it that way

But then you will actually hear Bob suggest at one point I was pointing out the difference between the key of David singular and the keys in Matthew 16 as It has to do with the fulfillment as a 22 in Matthew chapter 16 and you will hear

You hear pops and Jenna's say in that debate which is number 464 on the website

Go into the ailment store. It's 464 Four hours 19 minutes of debate

You will actually hear Bob's just a key keys. It doesn't matter Whether it's one key or many keys whether it's a messianic key of the

Kingdom of David or keys of the it doesn't matter Folks Go watch it go listen to it the the information's there

It's just as vital as it has has always been Yeah back chapter 15 where the debate over circumcision arises and Peter stands up and says we're no longer going to practice circumcision

And he had no scriptural precedent to do so now in reality and here's another big area and this this goes back to Stuff of the papacy

Stuff we've been dealing with for 20 years now And I'd say me me and those associated with me it's been dealt with long before that you can go back to Calvin deal with stuff like this, but All the idea that see

Peter is ruling over the council in Jerusalem. He wasn't He wasn't look at it.

It's James. It's not Peter Peter Peter gives his viewpoint

But it's it's James who announces the decision of the council and to say that they didn't have any biblical

Warrant is to ignore the entire body of the gospel and Jesus teachings on these matters

So but you see people are impressed by this man. Here's a Catholic knows his Bible There's you we're so unaccustomed writing the

Catholics know their Bible that someone who can quote stuff like Jerry Matitick's does it you know boom boom boom boom boom even faster than Bob's and Jenna's does very impressive

But then you start getting into each of the texts and it's not quite as impressive You have from John 14 16 where Jesus says to the disciples

I will lead you into all truth and I will be with you forever So here we have it. I'm not sure what that had to do anything because that was by the

Holy Spirit Well, okay. This is how it is Rome claims that her her decisions are spiritually guided and You know, that's where her infallibility comes from So he didn't really make much an effort to make a connection there to a church

It had not yet been founded at that point or anything else But there you go, but Jesus is guaranteeing that he's going to guide the church into truth.

And that's what happened That's why we believe that Christ is homo oseos and not homo oi oseos as What?

Homo oi oi you what it's homo oi oseos not homo oi oseos

Hmm Need to do a little brush up on the Council of Nicaea there and the

Terminology that was the Aryans had held who's going to decide that? The Bible by the way, the

Aryans held the Jesus hetero oseos not homo oi oseos So the homo oseos was the

Eusebian middle party and they weren't Aryans. So Doctors in Genesis all wrong on that one.

Not only pronunciation, but this is understanding What was going on at Nicaea Bible doesn't decide it for us because the Bible doesn't get into those issues

Now this was something that he used in our debate on papal infallibility In Clearwater, that was the fifth.

I had mentioned the previous other four, but The other debate we did was on papal infallibility, which was interesting because that was only a matter of months after I debated

Tim Staples on papal infallibility as well and They both gave completely different defenses of papal infallibility when we went to certain historical issues such as honorius

St. Genesis willing to throw him under the bus and say he was a heretic Says there's been lots of heretics or bishops of Rome, but God just wouldn't allow them to mislead the church in essence

But he tried to pull the same thing there and it I fully understand why he does it because it's extremely effective for most people

Because you hear that and you go well, how do I respond to an assertion that You know, how does the

Bible and as if What the Council of Nicaea did is? Not the only possible

Consistent interpretation of Scripture which is exactly what Athanasius argued this argument that was just given right there

Athanasius would have screamed had he ever heard anyone making that argument You need to understand that But again the issues of History and things like that We've believe it or not run out of time.

We're only 10 minutes 35 seconds into the end of the program We've covered a lot of ground and we have a lot more ground to cover

I hope you can tell I'm passionate about these things folks The truth is out there. The information is out there.

The history is out there. The exegesis is out there We need to know how to defend sola scriptura and we need to do so Vociferously we will continue with our examination of Robertson Genesis claims the encounter he had with Matt slick a little over a week ago on the dividing line

Thursday afternoon We'll see you then. God bless We need a new reformation

The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega ministries

If you'd like to contact us call us at 602 973 4602 or write us at PO box 3 7 1 0 6

Phoenix, Arizona 8 5 0 6 9. You can also find us on the world wide web at a omen org

That's a o m i n dot o RG where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks