Cross Examination: Bodily Assumption of Mary

Acts 15 and the Jerusalem Council as a Model for Church Decision-Making

Dr. Syngenis will have 15 minutes in which to question Dr. White.

Okay, Dr. White, we have a little bit more flexibility in this cross than we did in the last one. I don't know how exactly it's going to work, but I'm sure we both know what the objective is here, to have some interaction.

With that, the first question I would ask you is, in Acts 15, James is the Bishop of Jerusalem, is that correct?

That is my understanding. I mean, that's traditional, but yeah, that's my understanding.

Alright, now, is that why you keep saying, whenever this passage is brought up, that James is making the decision here because James is the Bishop of Jerusalem?

No, as I pointed out in verse 19, it is James who, after testimony offered by Peter and testimony offered by Paul, is the one who gives, based upon a citation of scripture, the decision of the council.

And so, Peter's words did not finish the discussion. And so, since he is the only one who says, I judge, therefore I judge, and the letter that comes from the council is written on the basis of what he says, I do not see any reason for saying that Peter was somehow functioning in the way that you seem to believe that he was.

Does Peter stand up in verse 6 and 7 and give the decision about circumcision?

I don't see the word decision. He said, verse 6 says,. And the apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter. After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, Brethren, you know, that he goes on.

But that did not end it because, as you know, in verse 12,.

Wait, wait, wait, I didn't ask you that. Please, if you don't mind me interacting with you.

No, that's fine.

I didn't ask you that question yet. Let's just take it a step at a time. Did Peter, you don't want to use the word decision, did Peter make a declaration, a statement about circumcision?

Yes.

Okay.

Specifically, his statement was, but we believe, not I believe, but we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ the same way as they also. So that's actually, I don't see the term circumcision here.

In fact, no, I don't see the term circumcision.

Well, is not the context dealing with circumcision all the way back in verse 1?

Actually, I would actually disagree that it's about circumcision specifically since Paul had Timothy circumcised, as it is the idea of the necessity of joining the Old Covenant by circumcision.

Well, doesn't verse 5 say that Pharisees stood up and said it is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the law of Moses?

Right, is that function of circumcision? The idea that circumcision is a part of the New Testament gospel, that you have to become a member of the Old Covenant before you become a member of the New Covenant.

Right, whatever.

Yes, circumcision is mentioned, we agree to that. You are agreeing that Peter made some kind of declaratory statement. There was much discussion prior to Peter's decision, or Peter's declaration, whatever you want to call it, before he declared it.

There was much discussion about the subject, yes.

Okay, alright. So, did James make a decision about circumcision?

Well, yes, I believe all of this is on the same subject. Because what you are inserting into the text is that verse 12 is that all the people kept silent, and they were listening to Paul and Barnabas as they were relating what signs and wonders God had done to them among the Gentiles.

This was the same subject that Peter had been addressing. And you'll notice that far from making a statement, a dogmatic statement, verse 10 says, Now, therefore, why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?

But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ in the same way as they also. Paul and Barnabas affirm that, giving demonstration that the Spirit has been working with them amongst the Gentiles doing the same thing.

After they had stopped speaking, then James, who evidently is in control of the council, then gives the decision of the council.

Well, there's no decision about circumcision from James. Where do you read that?

Well, notice, he gives his statement, Brethren, listen to me. Simeon has related how God first concerned himself about taking from among the Gentiles a people for his name, which he then substantiates with Scripture.

And on the basis of that says, Therefore, it is my judgment that we do not trouble those, etc., etc. Which, again, has to do with the whole concept of putting people under the circumcision law, the Old Testament laws, and the Old Covenant, and everything else.

I don't think that the vast majority of interpreters posit any kind of major distinction between these sections as if they're talking about different subjects.

Right. Well, let's say this, Dr. White. What you have here is two apostles working together. One happens to be the bishop of Jerusalem. The other is the chief apostle. They've made a decision for the church that circumcision will no longer be practiced.

Both of them do so without any explicit directive from Scripture, tradition, or anywhere else to make their decision.

I'm sorry, that's just not true. We have Old Testament citation in verse 16, 17, and 18. It's an Old Testament citation, so I'm not sure what you mean by that.

If you look at those passages, Dr. White, can you tell me where Amos 9, verse 16 discusses circumcision?

I don't think that it has to. I think your argument is with James, who saw this as being directly relevant. And he himself is the one who says, with this, the words of the prophets agree just as it is written.

All right. So what you're telling me, then, is that James can take a passage from the Old Testament that has nothing to do with circumcision, and use that as a support for the decision that the church made in Peter that circumcision would no longer be practiced by the church.

As I said at the very beginning, I disagree that this is simply a matter of circumcision. This is a matter of circumcision as being the means by which a person is placed under the Old Covenant before he can go into the New Covenant.

And that is what the prophecy is talking about, because it's a prophecy of restoration, as all the New Covenant prophecies were.

Dr. White, I beg to differ with you. Show me where anything other than circumcision under the Law of Moses is being discussed in Acts, chapter 15.

Actually, you cited it yourself when you went to the section. It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses. Who? The Gentile converts that were coming in. So, as Paul interprets this entire discussion, and as Paul interprets the activity of the Pharisees and the Judaizers, he very clearly recognizes that they saw circumcision as something that needs to be added to faith in Jesus Christ.

You have to become a member of the Old Covenant before you become a member of the New Covenant.

Alright, so my question still remains. Where does Amos talk about doing away with the Law of Moses or circumcision?

It has to do with the restoration that is going to come and the fact, as you can see in the text itself, that this has to do with the New Covenant and how the New Covenant is going to be different from the Old Covenant.

Notice it says, so that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, that's the Gentiles, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things known from long ago. So, here you have a prophecy that there are going to be Gentiles who are called by his name, not Gentile converts to Judaism who have been circumcised.

So, James clearly does understand that there is Old Testament prophecy of this, and Paul demonstrates that in all of his letters over and over again.

We're not talking about Paul, we're talking about James. James could have quoted from Amos and still insisted that circumcision be practiced, because there's nothing said in Amos about ceasing circumcision.

That is, the Gentiles, and I'm going to form a question out of this so you can answer it, show us where either James or Amos is saying that circumcision can't be added when the Gentiles are being added to the New Covenant.

Because a person who is circumcised is no longer a Gentile.

Where is that discussion here, James?

It doesn't have to be. Anybody who read this would understand. And all the Gentiles who are called by my name would understand that that is a different group of people than the Jews who are circumcised.

I think that if anyone takes the time to go read a wide variety of critical commentaries in Acts chapter 15, they will see that I am giving...

We're not talking about other critical commentaries. We're talking about your interpretation. I want to zero in on that. If you are suggesting to us that it's so easy to arrive at this judgment, why are they having such a difficult time discussing this?

We have a huge debate going on between Paul and Barnabas, the elders, the apostles, and Peter stands up and then gives his declaration and says this is no longer going to be the way we do it. If it was so easy, why are they having such a struggle?

The question assumes facts, not evidence. I never said it was easy. The reality is that this is one of the most important turning points in the history of the early church. And it is the turning point where the danger of a Gentile Christian church versus a Jewish Christian church was averted.

Peter himself had had to receive three times the same vision for him to understand that he was not to call Gentiles unclean in Acts chapter 10 before going to Cornelius' house. And so what made all of this so hard was the traditions of the Jews and the fact that they saw themselves as a particular people and they saw those signs that they bore in their body as something that was extremely connected to the favor of God.

And that's what made it difficult. I never said it was easy.

Dr. Wright, what we're still stuck on here, however, is that James' quote from Amos says nothing about the Mosaic Law or circumcision having to be ceased for the Gentiles coming to the church. Now the reason this is important for us is because you've made such a big issue about me getting scriptures from the Old Testament that make allusions to the assumption of Mary.

And I admitted quite reciprocally that they are not explicit references to the assumption of Mary. But here we have a passage in Acts 15 where there's no explicit or direct reference to either circumcision or the Mosaic Law.

And yet you're claiming that James is using this scripture to set the precedent for how the Gentiles are going to make practice. That is, they will not be practicing circumcision when they enter the church.

So I am puzzled. Maybe you can help me get out of that puzzle here. But I'm puzzled as to how, on the one hand, you can criticize me for getting indirect passages from the Old Testament. But here you have one that James is using that's indirect and yet you give yourself leeway to use it.

This is inspired scripture and Pope Pius XII does not. Secondly, this is not merely some illusion. You may disagree with James' use of this, but anyone who actually reads it themselves will see. After these things I will return and I will rebuild the tabernacle of David which has fallen and will rebuild its ruins.

That's a promise of gathering the people of Israel back together again, which is a part of the New Covenant promises. Read Jeremiah chapter 31. And I will restore it so that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord.

That shows the gospel goes outside the Jewish community to the Gentiles and all the Gentiles were called by my name. Excuse me, that was a long question and I'm not done answering yet. So you have a clear, clear presentation of the gospel going to the Gentiles in the Old Testament citation in comparison to a mention of the Lord's feet, which is about the temple in Isaiah 60, being compared to Jesus' feet having been in Mary's womb.

I submit to you that there is no reason to be confused here. There is no parallel between the two.

Dr. Wade, does Jeremiah 31 say that circumcision would not be practiced?

Jeremiah chapter 31 does not mention the word circumcision. Well, wait a minute. I don't know that it does or does not.

Does any passage in the Old Testament say that circumcision would not be practiced when the New Covenant came?

Actually, Jeremiah chapter 31 does make references to that, specifically in the promise as it is seen in Hebrews chapter 8, that every person in the New Covenant will know the Lord and that there will no longer be any kind of...

Where does that mention circumcision?

I'm sorry?

Where does either Hebrews 8 or 10 or Jeremiah 31 mention circumcision?

Again, I allow the New Testament writers to interpret the Old Testament for me, and so when that specific terminology is utilized and they interpret it in that way, I just simply follow them as it does in the interpretative...

But in what way?

Because chapter 8 interprets Jeremiah chapter 31 as...

I know. Does either passage reference circumcision? That's the question. The answer is no. Is that correct?

I don't recall if the word is used specifically.

Well, I can tell you right now it's not there. So my point still stands, and I used all my 15 minutes for this because it's very important. There is no passage in the Old Testament that declares circumcision will not be practiced.

This is a decision that is made by either Peter or James, take your pick, one backed up by the other, doesn't make any difference. The fact is it's done without any scriptural precedent, without any tradition.

Is that a statement or a question?

I'm making a question. What do you have to say about that?

I think you are completely undercutting the argumentation of Peter and James, Paul and all of his epistles, all to try to create an epistemological basis to substantiate a dogma that you have not once mentioned in a 15-minute cross-examination period and a debate on that subject.

Would I have the right to do that if you can't give me a good answer. Why James is not stating any passage from the Old Testament that says circumcision will cease?

I think James himself would agree that he gave a very good reference to the fact that the Gospels go to the Gentiles, which is what the whole circumcision issue was.

Well, someday, hopefully, we can ask James and see what he meant. Okay, my time is up.

Thank you, Dr. St. Genes. Dr. White, 15 minutes.

The Bodily Assumption of Mary as Revelation and the Question of Early Belief

Dr. St. Genes, is the doctrine of the bodily assumption of Mary a revelation from God?

Depends on what you mean by revelation, why don't you define that for me.

Did God reveal it as a divine truth?

Yes.

When?

Was it believed to be a divine truth by Ignatius, anyone in the 1st century?

Not Ignatius, no.

Anyone in the 1st century that you know of?

Yes, there would have to be.

So there were people in the 1st century who believed the bodily assumption of Mary, but they left no record of their belief in the bodily assumption of Mary?

Certainly possible.

Same with the 2nd century?

Certainly possible.

3rd century?

Certainly possible.

4th century?

Yep.

How did the transitist literature come up with this belief? Did they borrow it from the divine deposit of faith and just pervert it?

That's irrelevant. The fact is that the transitist was deemed a heretical work in most of what it said, so it was discarded. The assumption that that assumption came from the transitist is unfounded. You have no way to prove that.

With the statement of Augustine in his introduction on the Trinity, Book 1, Chapter 2, Paragraph 4, where he is introducing his discussion of the Trinity, and before he gets into it, he says this,. First, however, we must demonstrate, according to the authority of the Holy Scriptures, whether the faith be so.

Why would Augustine in the 4th century, end of the 4th century, beginning of the 5th century, why would he say that he had to demonstrate the doctrine of the Trinity on the authority of the Holy Scriptures?

As you said yourself, Dr. White, the Scriptures talk about the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, so where else would he go to to get the information about the Trinity? Obviously, it goes through the Scripture because that has most of the information.

It doesn't mean, however, that Augustine's authority, that you're going to now be able to extrapolate that to all the other doctrines Augustine believed, and say that everything Augustine believes has to be explicitly taught in the Scripture.

That's not what he said. He just said on the doctrine of the Trinity, he was going to go to the Scripture for his authority. I would go to the Scripture, too, as my authority, because that's where it's talked about.

So, since you don't go to the Scripture for the bodily assumption of Mary, then you're saying it's not talked about there?

No, I do go to the Scripture for the bodily assumption of Mary. I just don't go the way you want me to go. I've gone to Acts 15, and I've shown you that the Scripture itself gives us precedent that when there is no explicit Scripture or tradition, what do we do then?

Well, what we do then is we get the Church to decide about this based on logic, reason, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. So, that's what Scripture gives us.

So, the decision of Pius XII is a Holy Spirit-given revelation?

Yes.

And yet, the revelation had been given in the first century.

Yes.

But there just simply isn't a continuous chain of evidence of its existence.

Well, we have bits and pieces of it. But, you know, see, what you're expecting us to hold to is that in every doctrine that's believed, explicit chain of documentation. That's not what our Church teaches.

That's not what the Apostles taught. That's not what the Fathers taught. That's not what the Church taught. There are some doctrines that are very clear in Scripture. There are some doctrines we have very ambiguous information in Scripture.

That's the nature of life.

Isn't this really the vive voce argument, believe it because we said it? I mean, honestly, isn't this all boiling down to, well, I interpret Acts 15 in a certain way. And by the way, let me just ask, is there an infallible interpretation of Acts 15 you can reverse?

Has Rome infallibly interpreted Acts 15 the way that you have?

No.

As a matter of fact, a lot of the passages that Pius XII picks in this document, only assumption, are not infallibly interpreted either.

Okay.

So, aren't you just basically saying you believe this because we tell you to believe the vive voce?

No.

Not at all.

I know what you implied by that. It's like my father saying, do this because I told you. We can all use that argument. You know, authority can use that argument. But authority does not like to use that argument because they don't want to make it appear as if you're just doing this because you're free.

The Church, in what, how many pages is it? Well, over 20 pages gives us the reasons why we are to believe in this doctrine. Then she says at the end, okay, we are an authority and we do command you to believe this.

But the Church is not saying, oh, you believe it because we're the Church, that's it.

Finite.

Okay, nothing further to be said. We just put this in one sentence, believe it because we said it, that's it. That's not the way to do it.

But none of those 20 pages of Munificentus Nesteus actually provides any kind of either scriptural or even patristic argumentation. Most of the citations are very, very late. They're not in the patristic period whatsoever.

And I think you had said that the Pope never said that Isaiah 60 .13 or Revelation chapter 12 are actually proofs of the bodily assumption. They're just used as indications or allusions. So, we have indications, allusions, and then at the end we're told, believe.

And if you don't, you're cut off. Why isn't that viva voca? Why isn't that ipsedictive? We say it.

Dr. White, first of all, you're assuming that scripture and tradition are the only way we get information. Number two is, in the document itself, it says, there is an authority, tradition is an authority, and doctrines which are proposed by the church either in solemn judgment or in its ordinary universal teaching office.

So, we have three sources we can go to to get doctrines for us to believe. Scripture, tradition, or the church.

You made reference to various miracles and basically likened anyone who would reject these miracles to the Jews that rejected the miracles. I think, if I recall correctly, and correct me if I'm wrong, you made reference to Mary's works.

Do you believe that these apparitions are part of Mary's works that testify to her bodily assumption?

Mary's works?

Well, Mary's given a mission.

That's somehow related to bodily assumption?

Well, if she wasn't bodily assumed into heaven, she wouldn't be able to come back in her body to earth and give a message. That was my point.

I see.

When Augustine, in his reply to Faustus, the Manichaean, book 13, section 5, talked about their claims about miracles, he asks the question, he says, If you reject these passages of Scripture in spite of the weight of the authority in their favor, what miracles can you show?

He says this, This shows that the established authority of Scripture must outweigh every other, for it derives new confirmation from the progress of events which happen, as Scripture proves, in fulfillment of predictions made so long before their occurrence.

So, is it not the case that we are to test any supposed miracle on the basis of Scripture?

Yes.

You said on the basis of Scripture?

Yes.

I'll agree with you that we are to test a miracle to see if Scripture is going to be the final authority. Now, that's another story altogether. We may use Scripture to help us to do that, but Scripture is not the final authority.

So, what basis is the final authority for testing a miracle?

Church?

Scripture and tradition.

But Scripture and tradition are both determined by the Church, are they not?

Well, you determine when the...

Doesn't Scripture, aren't both Scripture and tradition determined, both interpreted and determined by the Church?

I would hope so.

Who else is going to do it?

So, how do you make them equal when they are subservient to and determined by the Church?

Because Scripture is inspired by God, and the Holy Spirit guides the Church. So, we have God inspiring Scripture, we have God leading the Church, we have God giving oral revelation in the tradition. So, all the sources are from God.

Therefore, they're all equal.

What if Rome isn't the Church, and your assumption is wrong?

What if you're a Martian and shouldn't be here? I mean, there's, you know, you can ask all kinds of questions all day long.

Let me repeat that so that people can hear that. You are assuming the end of the debate. That seems to be a circular argument. It sounds like by the answer you just gave, you are demonstrating sola ecclesia.

Well, we are the Church. Just believe us.

Well, Dr. White, that's why I went through Acts chapter 15 for you. That's why I went through Acts chapter 1. I showed you that when the time came for decisions to be made, it wasn't anybody but the Church.

If you can point to any other authority in the Scripture who made the decisions, then you have a point.

The apostles and elders were the ones who met in Jerusalem for Acts chapter 15. Are you placing Pope Pius XII on the same level as the Jerusalem apostles?

Well, I would hope that if Jesus gave the keys to Peter, gave him the decision, it wouldn't stop with him. Because if it stopped in the first century after Jesus ascended, we all would be able to create.

So there is continuing revelation, just like the Mormons say.

Excuse me?

There is continuing revelation, then?

I didn't say that. I'm talking about authority here.

Okay.

If Jesus gave authority to Peter, if it didn't succeed him, then we're all in a bad way here because we have no authority whatsoever. You don't have any and I don't have any.

I don't have any authority whatsoever. So, a promise to give Peter the keys in Matthew 16, which is fulfilled in Matthew 18 with all the apostles, that promise, we must believe, makes a man in Rome in 1950 capable of defining a dogma that no one for the first 500 years of the Christian church we have any record of ever binding on anyone else.

That's the essence of our debate this evening.

That's why I went through Acts 15 for you. Dr. White, I told you the church can make a decision like that. The Bible is giving us an example of how the church makes a decision without scripture or tradition.

And if you are wrong about Acts chapter 15, then your entire defense of the bodily assumption collapses.

Correct.

And yet you do not have anything but your personal interpretation because you've admitted that you do not have an infallible interpretation of Acts chapter 15.

No, because I also have your failure to show us who else is making the decision in Acts 15.

Well, we'll let the audience determine who's failed in dealing with Acts chapter 15, but the point is...

No, no, I didn't say who's failed, Dr. White. I just said you haven't shown me who else is making the decision besides the church in Acts 15.

That's what I said.

But the point is that this entire dogma which you have said has the same authority, the same foundation as the resurrection of Jesus Christ is based upon a non-infallibly interpreted text in Acts chapter 15 that's not talking about Mary, has no reference to Mary, has no reference to bodily assumption, and in fact is highly disputed as to who's making the determination and its use of the Old Testament.

That's the foundation upon which we have to stand to believe the bodily assumption of Mary.

No, no, the church made the decision, Dr. White, in Acts 15. The church made all the decisions that you find came up in the New Testament. There is no place in the New Testament that you can show me that someone other than the church made the decision.

Dr. White, Dr. St. Janice, 10 minute closing please.