Hey everyone! I'm visiting family for July, so my studio setup is a little different! I hope you don't mind :)
@myronmercado
18 күн бұрын
Great setup there.
@hans-georg609120 күн бұрын
Can you discuss this matter with Gavin Ortlund? - Regards from Germany 🇩🇪💐😊
@CameronRiecker
20 күн бұрын
I would love to :) Maybe I'll reach out to him!
@CameronRiecker
20 күн бұрын
I'm of German heritage btw :)
@hans-georg6091
20 күн бұрын
@@CameronRieckerPlease do ❤
@hans-georg6091
20 күн бұрын
@@CameronRieckerYes, your surname reveals your ancestry😊
@jineshfrancis
15 күн бұрын
@@hans-georg6091Is he believed in celestial-flesh? (It teaches that Jesus Christ did not take on human flesh because of the blind Mary hatred ... it is a heresy) Trent horn response to Gavin on assumption of mary kzread.info/dash/bejne/hXeGrdV9f7jFhrQ.htmlsi=oNzW3eX47Wgy0KvR
@philipmarchalquizar774115 күн бұрын
Love this brother🙏😊
@jamesmessina43619 күн бұрын
Let’s go Cameron!!!
@CountCulture2720 күн бұрын
Okay, first of all, great points in logic. However, there are some very big issues you have to face that make what you’re saying and what the church believes changing the Gospel. I have no problem with you believing Mary’s ascension. I believe I the Pre-Trib rapture which is similar. (I can find more proof for mine than you can for yours Biblically, but that’s not the point). This point of you saying you must believe it for Salvation is where you and your church need to truly think and, in my opinion change it from mandatory. If you don’t mind I’ll explain why your logic does miss the mark, respectfully. 1. You claim the Bible was written already before Mary died.ascended. That’s realistically not accurate. If she was 16 when Jesus was born, she would’ve been 49 when he was resurrected. Paul and Peter died around 30 years later, making her 80. The epistles of John, and probably the Gospel of John wasn’t written until she was at the very youngest 85. That’s if you take John’s contributions early. 2. Look at John chapter 3, verses 14-18. 14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up,[a] 15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”[b] 16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. He doesn’t mention belief in the Mom that birthed him. This is one example, which is consistent with his constant theme, belief and trust in him alone. Before you mention that Mary is still alive, Jesus would’ve mentioned it. I mean, he shows us the future in Matthew 24, if this was a key to salvation why wouldn’t he mention it? 3. Galatians 1:8-9; 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse! The first four words of eight make it clear that even if “we” the apostles change it, we should be cursed. Paul knew it would seem, that people would change the Gospel. Yes, the church is supposed to shepherd us through life. However, it is under the authority of the Bible, the Bible is not under the authority of the church. Let me put it this way. Jesus is called the Word by John. The church is the bride. When you listen to the church and not the word, you are choosing the bride over the bridegroom and that is where errors begin. Thanks for your time in reading this. You’re a very likable and intelligent guy and I have enjoyed watching your video.
@pajamaninja2157
18 күн бұрын
i don't really fully understand this position when i hear it to be honest. so if you believe Jesus, put your full faith in Jesus and believe him in all that he says, you believe that he started a church and that church that the gates of hell shall not prevail over, if the church declares a doctrine and you disagree you are disagreeing with Jesus's church and not putting your faith in him. like i don't understand why with Mary it's usually a problem but when its whether god is a trinity or the nature of Christ it's okay when that is also not in the gospel either but also mandatory. also in Gal we aren't contradicting what is there and if it means a literally different gospel I mean Paul summarizes the gospel twice and they're different, one includes son of god the other doesn't (from what i can remember) does that mean he is under god's curse? no they do not contradict each other, they aren't different gospels. so unfortunately, you have misunderstood and separated Jesus from his church and also is a very weird thing to say, like are you trying to be god's mistress? I don't think he'll be that bad of a husband (joke I'm not being serious). okay well if the church is the bride of Christ, they are in union with one another. they have become one flesh so to speak. if you deny one you deny the other. the church cannot go against what is said in scripture nor anything doctrinally in faith and morals to god not because we're so great and super smart, but it is because god is with and protecting his church from error. Plus, the bride will receive the fullness of Christ so if you love God be the bride. i mean this respectful btw text can remove certain communications. god bless man may Mary(😉) and all the angels and saints pray for you and watch over you all the days of your life
@CountCulture27
18 күн бұрын
@@pajamaninja2157I totally read this as respectful and would like to help you understand at least my position. You may not agree, but hopefully you will understand. 1. The church as I perceive it and as it is stated Biblically was not just built on Peter, but Peter’s confession that Jesus was the Son of God, the Christ. So, by that definition, a church that teaches that confession is the true church. In addition, every notable denomination came from the Roman Catholic Church which came from the Catholic Church, which came from the Way. (Eastern Orthodox also came from the Way, so they also are a foundation of Christianity). 2. Why did the church split into a bunch of different denominations? I can summarize it in two verses. Galatians 1:8-9. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse! Paul was an early church leader as you well know. He wrote Romans which is a guide to salvation. Guess how many times Mary is in it? Show me the verses that explain indulgences. The Catholic Church began changing the Gospel and to make sure the gates of Hell didn’t overcome the church, the church was divided….just like the Jews were when they rebelled against God. You probably don’t agree, but hopefully you understand.
@randycarson9812
17 күн бұрын
@@CountCulture27 Point #1: No, the Church was not built on Peter's confession (although that was the catalyst for Jesus' selection of Simon to become the "Kepha" of the Church). This is an argument that has long been put to bed among Protestant scholars, and I have 25 quotes to back this claim. Here is just one: *Donald A. Carson (Baptist)* “On the basis of the distinction between 'petros' . . . and 'petra' . . . , many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere 'stone,' it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the 'rock' . . . Others adopt some other distinction . . . Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken 'rock' to be anything or anyone other than Peter . . . The Greek makes the distinction between 'petros' and 'petra' simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine 'petra' could not very well serve as a masculine name . . . Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been 'lithos' ('stone' of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun - and that is just the point! . . . In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .” (Expositor's Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984], vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Matthew: D.A. Carson), 368) Point #2: No, there is not a "Roman Catholic Church" and a "Catholic Church". This is a myth put forth by Protestants who NEED a historical fiction to justify their separation from the Church founded by Jesus upon Peter and the Apostles. No apostasy occurred; the Catholic Church teaches the same doctrines taught by the early Church. If you like, I can provide you with a list of over 40 Early Church Fathers from AD 33 to AD 500, and you can review their writings to determine whether the pure, pristine, pre-Constantinian Church believed the same doctrines held by the Church today. Sure, we have developed our theology more completely, but the core beliefs are the same. Don't take my word for it; prove this to yourself. As you study what the Fathers wrote, I invite you to provide some details regarding who and when the alleged apostasy of the Catholic Church occurred. Quote some of these Fathers _objecting_ to theological innovations of the apostate "Roman" Church. Share with us some of the history of this mystery church that existed alongside the "Roman" Catholic Church. It should be a good learning experience.
@CountCulture27
17 күн бұрын
@@randycarson9812Hey, Randy. Sure send the link on here or tell me exactly what doc to search up and I’ll get to it. My point is pretty simple. First a lot of people called it the Roman Catholic Church, not just me….but, when Rome nationalized the religion in the 300s, things began to happen. Not all of it was bad, but things changed. The Bible was compiled around that time, so yay. However, this was when the sinless doctrine of Mary began building prominence. Later other questionable doctrine came dealing with Mary, Perpetual virgin, immaculate conception, etc. They weren’t doctrine prior to the Roman Empire being involved. You can say that all church leaders believed in the 100s, but I will look forward to reading your early history so my concerns can dissipate some if this can prove her contemporaries believed all of that about her and it wasn’t just doctrine that grew. Thanks!
@CountCulture27
17 күн бұрын
@@randycarson9812Oh, about Peter, either I mispoke or didn’t say it clearly, I believe that Jesus built his church on Peter and his confession both.
@fpinto30019 күн бұрын
Whether 50% or 100% dna Mary had to be immaculate born without sin otherwise the fruit of her womb would have had to inherit the sin of Adam. Of course being without sin she would have to be as Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden before sinning and her body and soul would have to be incorruptible. as Adam and Eve were meant to be. Hence she had to be assumed into heaven.
@myronmercado18 күн бұрын
Proof of the assumption is the absence of the bodily remains of Mary here on earth. The Catholic Church holds the bodies of all the Apostles. No reason for the Church not to have her body and preserve it as its most important relic except for her bodily assumption.
@CountCulture27
18 күн бұрын
Now that’s a reasonable argument. But, to base salvation on this which is, while reasonable, an argument from silence seems highly suspect and still against the Gospel preached by Paul.
@randycarson9812
17 күн бұрын
@@CountCulture27 How is the assumption of Mary "against the Gospel preached by Paul" in any way? There is no scripture verse which denies Mary's assumption.
@CountCulture27
17 күн бұрын
@@randycarson9812If it is based on salvation for the belief it would be against the Gospel. Not the belief but preaching the belief is necessary for salvation would be.
@randycarson9812
17 күн бұрын
@@CountCulture27 The Catholic Church sees the Marian dogmas as part of the organic growth of doctrine under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. They are *not* considered to be _additions_ to the gospel but rather fuller expressions of the truths contained within the gospel. The Church believes that both Scripture and Tradition, interpreted by the Magisterium, reveal the fullness of the Christian faith. *1. Role of Sacred Tradition and Scripture:* The Catholic Church holds that Divine Revelation is transmitted through both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. The teachings about Mary are part of this broader Tradition that complements and supports Scripture. The Marian dogmas are believed to be rooted in the Apostolic Tradition, which predates the New Testament writings. The Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, has the authority to interpret and define these traditions over time. *2. Development of Doctrine:* The understanding of Christian doctrine has developed over centuries. The Marian dogmas, while not explicitly detailed in Paul's writings, have been recognized and defined by the Church as it deepened its understanding of the faith. Many Christian beliefs have developed over time. *The doctrine of the Trinity, for instance, was not fully articulated in the New Testament but was developed and clarified through early Church councils.* Our understanding of original sin has also developed. The rapture and sola scriptura have been added to the list of Protestant doctrines relatively recently. *3. Complementary Nature of Marian Dogmas:* The Marian dogmas support key Christological doctrines. For example, Mary being the Mother of God (Theotokos) emphasizes Jesus' divine nature. These dogmas are seen as enhancing and deepening the understanding of the mysteries of Christ and the Incarnation. *4. Pauline Silence Does Not Equate to Rejection:* Paul's epistles were written to address specific issues in early Christian communities. The absence of explicit mention of Marian dogmas does not mean Paul rejected them; rather, they may not have been the focus of his writings. While Paul did not write explicitly about Marian dogmas, other parts of the New Testament, such as the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, provide a basis for these teachings. The Church interprets these scriptures in the context of its Sacred Tradition. *5. Authority of the Church:* The Catholic Church believes that its teaching authority (Magisterium) is guided by the Holy Spirit to interpret both Scripture and Tradition correctly. The definitions of Marian dogmas fall under this authority. The Church's authority includes the ability to define teachings that are binding for all Catholics. This is seen not as "adding to the gospel" but as unfolding the full depth of the gospel message. *6. Importance for Salvation:* The Church teaches that the Marian dogmas are important for a full understanding of the Christian faith, but salvation itself is through Christ. The dogmas highlight aspects of faith that help believers understand and appreciate the mystery of Christ more fully. Belief in Marian dogmas is seen as part of a larger, cohesive understanding of the faith that supports one's relationship with Christ. IOW, we're not adding to the gospel; we're expounding it more fully than you are accustomed to hearing.
@jineshfrancis
15 күн бұрын
@@CountCulture27What do you mean.. Are you saying that Paul did not mention Mary's assumption in his letter? Its because she was alive when Paul was martyred.
@user-kg2un6qi1q18 күн бұрын
Luke 1:48. From this day forth, ALL generations shall count me blessed. ALL GENERATIONS, FOREVER. Says it all. The Assumption of The Ever Blessed, Ever Virgin, Holy Mary Mother of God is the only logical conclusion one may reach.
@Nick-rb1dc13 күн бұрын
Did Mary undergo labor pains? The prophet Isaiah says No. "Before she was in labor, she gave birth; before her pain came upon her, she delivered a son. Who has heard such a thing? Who has seen such things?" Is66.7-8
@Justyouraverageguy17220 күн бұрын
For clarity, dogmas and doctrines in the Catholic Church are there clarifying subtle or obvious truths in response to the times all of which are all Biblical and guided by the Holy Spirit and Jesus. Mary did not sin and was born without sin and full of grace and therefore logically Mary did not suffer death as the Holy Spirit speaks this Truth. Death is the wage of sin and separation of the soul from the body as Paul tells for EVEN ONE SIN a person commits the wage is death. Mary therefore is assumed into Heaven and not left to die and rot because Jesus went to Heaven first before us all and therefore assumed her body and soul into Heaven upon his command at the time of her death same as Elijah.
@CountCulture27
20 күн бұрын
The fact that Mary didn’t sin falls in the same realm as this thought. It’s like saying, yes, Santa’s real, the Easter Bunny saw him. The question is there is no Biblical proof of any of the Catholic beliefs about Mary. You can believe them, sure, but to make it a condition that belief in this necessary for salvation without Biblical evidence supporting any of it is a problem, Galatians 1:8-9 talks about the issues with changing the Gospel
@Justyouraverageguy172
20 күн бұрын
@@CountCulture27 “Hail Mary Full of Grace the Lord is with you” Luke 1:28 “Blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus. Holy Mary Mother of God” Luke 1:41-43 “Pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death Amen” James 5:16
@CountCulture27
19 күн бұрын
@@Justyouraverageguy172 28 The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.” That’s the earliest English translation I can find. Geneva. Can you please send me the one that says “Hail Mary?” The Myles Coverdale says “Hayle thou full of grace “ But, it seems to me it is a greeting in every translation in the Bible, not a comment that she is sinless. I have yet to find that quote exactly. Myles is close, but it isn’t Hail Mary, it is Hayle, like a greeting. She was blessed. She was going to carry the Savior of the World. That was the moment of her blessing, not before.
@CountCulture27
19 күн бұрын
By the way you Misquoted your James verse it is actually: 16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. Did you accidentally quote the wrong verse?
@CountCulture27
19 күн бұрын
Lastly, in Luke 1:41-43, that is Elizabeth speaking. She recognizes Mary as the mom of the baby that will be her Lord. That’s the context and from her point of view that’s correct. What does Jesus say? Nothing directly, but here are a couple of verses, please read before and after the ones I give you so your context is accurate. Luke 8:21 Luke 11: 27-28 Jesus himself looks like he was diminishing her role.
@39knights20 күн бұрын
Protestants are a funny bunch. We don't know who wrote Matthews gospel; but it is called Matthew's gospel because the Chritian community witnessed that it was Matthews testimony. Yet both the East and the West Church agree and witness that Mary was Assumed into heaven, body and soul; yet Protestants will reject that testimony. Funny hey?
@CountCulture27
20 күн бұрын
Yep, a few reasons. The first one is because it would’ve logically happened before John wrote his Gospel, his epistles and Revelation after her ascension. If she was 16 when she bore Jesus, she would’ve been around 50 when he died around 33AD. Most historians don’t believe John wrote any of his stuff until after 70AD and maybe closer to 80AD. Even at 70 AD she would be pushing 80. Second reason is pretty simple, it was not dogma until 1950. That means it was something that was at least doubted by the early church founders or it would’ve been dogma in the first or second century. For me, the lateness of the doctrine highlights its unreliability and decreases the likelihood it happened. Either way, belief on non belief in this event should not be a salvation issue. But, a lot of Catholics see it this way,even though, again, it wasn’t official doctrine until 1950.
@39knights
19 күн бұрын
@@CountCulture27 Your second reason I have another take on it. The Church only feels the need to define or declare something when it comes into doubt, not because they doubt it and it then becomes clearer. For example it would seem commonsense that among Christians there should be no doubt Jesus is divine. The Church clearly believed Jesus was God right from the get-go; yet a few hundred years later the Church found it necessary to declare as dogma the Divinity of Christ. The tradition is that upon the death of Mary she was placed in a tomb, and it was sealed. However Thomas was late in arriving from his missions to pay his respects. When he arrived they opened the tomb only to find it empty. It was their testimony that she had been assumed into heaven, body and soul. This was such a common belief among Christians (like the divinity of Jesus); that no-one felt a need to define or declare it until an active rejection of this belief arose in factions of Christians to the point the original belief had to be declared forcefully to try and quell the heresies or false theologies about it. Especialy in th growing opposition among protestants who seem to latch onto every basic Christian belief over time and take it to ridiculous places. So traditionally the Christian belief was in her assumption without doubt; but in time it had to be declared and when you really only have oral tradition from the Apostles, it is harder to provide empirical or biblical evidence that would satisfy everyone.
@randycarson9812
19 күн бұрын
@@CountCulture27 Just to be clear: the dogmas was formally defined in 1950, but it was believed right along. You do understand that, correct? IOW, it wasn't INVENTED as something new in 1950.
@CountCulture27
19 күн бұрын
@@randycarson9812Thank you. But even if I believe that it was universal thought in 150AD, which I don’t , you have a big problem with declaring it as a belief necessary for salvation in 1950…or ever frankly. To believe this changes the Gospel message that Paul preached. (Romans for example but in a lot of other areas of the Bible, too.). The message that Paul preached was echoed by the other apostles as he mentioned it was important that everyone was on the same page regarding the Gospel. Anything belief regarding Mary is not a part of the Gospel preached by Paul or any other apostle….or more importantly Jesus. If you say, “Well, the Church decided it as doctrine.” I point you to Galatians 1:8-9. In addition to the words I even we….meaning the church (or at least other apostles). I doubt the Mary doctrine simply because John if anything would’ve mentioned it in his Gospel, his epistles or through Revelation. He does not. Yes, the Bible may not describe everything in detail, but it definitely describes the road to salvation.
@randycarson9812
18 күн бұрын
@@CountCulture27 *Point #1:* Your approach effectively limits us to speculation about what the apostles knew and when they knew it. You force us to taking the few words that they put down in writing and saying to ourselves, "That's it...that's all we have to go on." But what the apostles said and DID were also part of their teaching that scripture instructs us to hold on to. And it does not allow us to consider what the words mean or what the implications of those words are. It took centuries for the Church to work out the hypostatic union. Is that doctrine wrong. Did Christ have one will or two? As a Protestant, I suspect you allow for development of Christological doctrine, but you balk at development of Marian doctrine. Am I wrong? *Point #2:* Your comment about John, etc. is simply an argument from silence. Should we expect to him to have written about Mary? Why? The requirement to believe in certain dogmas for salvation is based on the Catholic understanding of faith as assent to divine revelation, the authoritative role of the Church’s Magisterium, the necessity of dogmas for maintaining unity and orthodoxy, and the belief that these dogmas are essential truths revealed by God. This framework underscores the importance of accepting the fullness of divine revelation as communicated through the Church for a proper relationship with God and for attaining salvation. *Point #3:* Adherence to the Christian faith means ALL of it - not just "mere Christianity". The requirement to believe in certain dogmas for salvation is based on the Catholic understanding of faith as assent to divine revelation, the authoritative role of the Church’s Magisterium, the necessity of dogmas for maintaining unity and orthodoxy, and the belief that these dogmas are essential truths revealed by God. This framework underscores the importance of accepting the fullness of divine revelation as communicated through the Church for a proper relationship with God and for attaining salvation.
@rexlion451020 күн бұрын
I like how you bring out the fact that a Catholic must believe in the dogma of the Assumption or, "you reject your salvation _from the Catholic Church." This shows to everyone what Catholics really believe: that their salvation comes from their denomination. Put another way, a Catholic believes that his salvation hinges upon his Catholicity. This is far different than having faith in Jesus Christ alone as one's Savior from sin. I hope you will agree that the Gospel and the means of salvation, as Christ and the Apostles taught it, can be summed up in this manner: a] All have sinned and fallen short of God's standard of perfection, and without Christ all would be doomed to spend eternity separated from God. b] But God, in His great love, sent His Son to make full propitiation on the cross to redeem us from all of our sins. c] The way God has designated for any of us to receive His gift of saving grace (and His righteousness imputed to us) is: faith that Christ's propitiation is fully sufficient for the complete forgiveness of all of the person's (past, present, and future) sins. Supporting scriptures: John 3:14-18, 6:28-29,35,40,47; James 2:10; Gal. 3:13-14; Rom. 3:23-24, 4:3-8, 6:23; 10:9-13; Eph. 2:8-10. Let's be clear: _this Gospel of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus as the Christ (Messiah), the Savior from sin, is set forth by Jesus and the Apostles. Therefore it cannot be controverted by any denomination or by any later tradition._ Agreed? But after Christ ascended, it only took a couple of decades for some people to begin teaching (falsely) that additional salvific requirements exist. Paul severely warned against this error in his letter to the Galatians: Gal 1:6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel- Gal 1:7 not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. Gal 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. Gal 1:9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. The specific salvific requirement added by the false teachers in Galatia was: you must also be circumcised. However, we can see from the warning in Chapter 1 that any addition to the original Gospel (of Christ crucified for our redemption and of salvation through firm belief in Him) is to be rejected and roundly condemned. Thus the specific example flows to the general proposition, that whenever anyone claims that some legalism is a salvific requirement, _their claim must be rejected_ because it contradicts and conflicts with the pure Gospel which Jesus and the Apostles communicated to us. Therefore, what is our proper response, as faithful Christians, to any denomination which teaches additional salvific requirements? Our response must be to reject those alleged requirements and to consider the denomination in question to have strayed from the true Gospel, for it teaches "another gospel" and it thereby misleads its followers toward perdition. We are called to be "light" and "salt" to the world, so a denomination which teaches another gospel may be likened to salt that has lost its saltiness: Mat 5:13 “You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people's feet.” What, then, are the requirements for salvation which the RCC teaches? Have they added new requirements? Yes, they have. * To be saved, in addition to faith in Jesus Christ, one is required to believe in Mary's Immaculate Conception * To be saved, in addition to faith in Jesus Christ, one must believe in Mary's bodily Assumption The Marian dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are official dogmas of the RCC. The CCC says in #88 that a Catholic is required (irrevocably obliged) to adhere to the official dogmas of the church. Pius IX solemnly proclaimed the dogma of the Immaculate Conception: "... We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which asserts that the Blessed Virgin Mary, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God, and in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, was preserved free from every stain of original sin is a doctrine revealed by God and, for this reason, *_must be_** firmly and constantly believed **_by all_** the faithful"* (DS 2803). When Pius XII declared the dogma of the Assumption, he included this warning: “Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith....let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.” The church of Rome says you can't be a true Catholic... indeed, you cannot be saved by grace through faith in Christ... unless you also believe these and other dogmas of the RCC. Other dogmas? Yes, there are more salvific doctrines taught by the RCC which Christ and the Apostles did not teach. Read _Unam Sanctam_ and _Cantate Domino,_ for example. These dogmas stand as _prima facie_ evidence that the church of Rome teaches a false gospel. It pains me deeply to see my dear Catholic friends being misled! I want you to come to heaven with me! 💞 Won't you please repent and put all of your trust in Christ Jesus?
@CameronRiecker
20 күн бұрын
Thank you for the comment! I think Jesus gave the Church His authority and so what the Church says I follow 😊
@rexlion4510
20 күн бұрын
@@CameronRiecker Cameron, by that logic if the Church comes out with a new dogma that Jesus has returned in a spaceship and he's told the pope that we all need to stop burning petroleum immediately, you will follow? 😉 I hope you are a critical thinker who can evaluate the evidence, not an automaton. The evidence that a heretical contagion has infected the church of Rome is... well, it's _very evident._
@CountCulture27
20 күн бұрын
@@CameronRieckerSo, when Jesus spoke to Nicodemus and outlined clearly what the good news was, you disagree with him? By making this a salvation issue, you are disputing Paul who says in Galatians 1:8-9 the following: 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse Even with apostolic succession notice the use of the phrase, “But even if we…”. If you truly believe that Peter and Paul started the church and were apostles, you have to abandon the idea this is a salvation issue or you denounce Paul. Respectfully, there isn’t another option. The assumption of Mary was not something mentioned by Paul, Peter or anyone. But, and this is key, Jesus is VERY clear that Salvation only comes through him. So, are you worshipping Jesus, the Church or Jesus and the church? Saying the church is established by Jesus, so I can do just what it says. No. Paul gave the Bereans as an example of what we should do. Not to believe humans in power but search the scriptures.
@randycarson9812
19 күн бұрын
While the Marian dogmas were not explicitly detailed in the earliest expressions of Christian faith, the Catholic Church sees them as intrinsically connected to the faith "delivered once for all to the saints" through the development of doctrine, early Church beliefs, and the interpretation of Scripture within the living Tradition of the Church.
@randycarson9812
19 күн бұрын
@@CountCulture27 Paul never made a clear, explicit statement about the Trinity, either. But over time, the Church came to understand the Trinity more and more clearly. The same is true with Original Sin. In the same way, the Marian Dogmas are contained in the faith delivered once for all to the saints. It just takes some thought to realize what is present.
@rexlion451020 күн бұрын
Actually, I'd say the reason we Protestants oppose the dogma is because they like to stick to the Apostolic faith that Jesus and the Apostles taught. Neither Jesus nor the Apostles elevated Mary or taught Marian piety. Besides, when we see Catholics praying the Hail Mary ten times for every Our Father, and some Catholics even calling for her to be declared co-Mediatrix and co-Redemptrix, we see that as a major detraction from the only Savior and Lord, God the Son. The contrast between Jesus (the uncreated God the Son) and any created being whom He made _should be immense._ But the Catholic Church greatly reduces that contrast and elevates Mary to a status that approaches (and perhaps reaches) quasi-divinity. Yes, 100% of Jesus' incarnate genome came from Mary. Whoop-de-doo. You are thinking carnally, not spiritually, when you focus on that fact. Jesus is God, and 0% of His divinity came from Mary. Doesn't divinity trump chromosomes by a magnitude of order? 😀
@randycarson9812
19 күн бұрын
Whoop-de-doo? Catholics and other Christians view Mary as a model of faith and obedience, a powerful intercessor, and a crucial participant in God’s plan of salvation. Her unwavering trust in God and her acceptance of His will are seen as exemplary, inspiring Catholics to deepen their own faith and commitment to God. Mary's virtues, including her humility, purity, and compassion, serve as a guiding example for the faithful. We should all aspire to be immaculate and to be assumed into heaven. We will be immaculate when we are cleansed of all sin, and we will be assumed or caught up to heaven when Jesus returns. Mary serves as the prototype for all Christians, embodying the ideal of a life dedicated to God's service and the hope of ultimate union with Him in heaven.
@rexlion4510
19 күн бұрын
@@randycarson9812 Mary, our model? Our prototype? Nope. We are called to be like Jesus, to imitate Christ. He is our supreme model. Only Christ loved us so much, He suffered on the cross and died for us. Jesus, not Mary, made the supreme sacrifice for you and me. 1Pe 2:21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. Mary, crucial? Not all all; if Mary had declined, God would have incarnated through some other Jewish woman. But Jesus was crucial in the plan of salvation; without Jesus you'd be lost in sin, but without Mary there would've been a Rebecca or a Judith or somebody else. But thanks for validating the deep concerns of all Protestants, that Catholics go totally ga-ga and overboard about Mary. 😆
@randycarson9812
19 күн бұрын
@@rexlion4510 Are we supposed to become like Christ? Sure. But AS DISCIPLES, we cannot do better than to follow Mary's example. She was His first and greatest disciple. Your argument is patently absurd. God knew what He was doing and what Mary's response would be. But okay, suppose it had been Rebecca or Judith...so what? In that case, we would be extolling Rebecca or Judith. But that's not what happened, is it? Finally, I'll make an analogy: when a painting is well-received by reviewers and the public, the artist is honored by the praise his work receives. The artist identifies so closely with his work that praise of the painting is received as praise of his skill and creativity. In the same way, when Catholics honor the saints, they honor God who perfected them in their faith. Saints are venerated or honored (not worshiped) because their lives reflect God's grace and work within them. By honoring the saints, Catholics acknowledge God's role in their sanctification, ultimately giving glory to Him.
@rexlion4510
19 күн бұрын
@@randycarson9812 Rom 11:36 "For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen." Oh yeah, and Mary too. Paul just forgot, right? 🤪 Rev 5:12-23 "saying with a loud voice, “Worthy is -Mary who was obedient- the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!” And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, saying, “To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!” And to Mary.... crickets. 😂 Whatever, dude. You go on venerating creatures, and I'll go on venerating the Creator. No comparison.
@randycarson9812
19 күн бұрын
@@rexlion4510 Ah...there is the error. No, you should NOT "go on venerating the Creator". You should _worship_ the Creator and _venerate_ the heroes of the faith: Mary and the Saints. Worship and veneration are two different things.
@windyday859820 күн бұрын
by you declaring to the whole world that "our salvation hinges upon believing the catholic dogma's about mary", you set the seal for your own condemnation. go figure, and fear. everything else you say in this video bears no resemblance to the truth of the whole gospel of jesus christ. do you know what gnosticism is? it is secret knowledge about God and Christ that can neither be proven nor disproven, which overrules the revealed word of God in scripture, i.e. from a higher source. (the spirit of antichrist in the 1st century) the ark of the covenant/the mercy seat: upon which the blood of the sacrifice was spilled. hmm. at the foot of, and on the cross? the new covenant in his blood. but- with his own blood he entered the most holy place, not made with hands, once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. i would suggest that is why the ark of covenant is seen in heaven, until the last blood was shed once for all. just common sense, as you say, thinking more correctly. it's all about the blood, jesus fulfilling the law and prophets, by himself. he alone is our salvation. he alone accomplished this.
@Maryismymom2
19 күн бұрын
No one cares if the Protestants condemn us. Let them reject what they want. They're no authority whatsoever.
Пікірлер: 125
Hey everyone! I'm visiting family for July, so my studio setup is a little different! I hope you don't mind :)
@myronmercado
18 күн бұрын
Great setup there.
Can you discuss this matter with Gavin Ortlund? - Regards from Germany 🇩🇪💐😊
@CameronRiecker
20 күн бұрын
I would love to :) Maybe I'll reach out to him!
@CameronRiecker
20 күн бұрын
I'm of German heritage btw :)
@hans-georg6091
20 күн бұрын
@@CameronRieckerPlease do ❤
@hans-georg6091
20 күн бұрын
@@CameronRieckerYes, your surname reveals your ancestry😊
@jineshfrancis
15 күн бұрын
@@hans-georg6091Is he believed in celestial-flesh? (It teaches that Jesus Christ did not take on human flesh because of the blind Mary hatred ... it is a heresy) Trent horn response to Gavin on assumption of mary kzread.info/dash/bejne/hXeGrdV9f7jFhrQ.htmlsi=oNzW3eX47Wgy0KvR
Love this brother🙏😊
Let’s go Cameron!!!
Okay, first of all, great points in logic. However, there are some very big issues you have to face that make what you’re saying and what the church believes changing the Gospel. I have no problem with you believing Mary’s ascension. I believe I the Pre-Trib rapture which is similar. (I can find more proof for mine than you can for yours Biblically, but that’s not the point). This point of you saying you must believe it for Salvation is where you and your church need to truly think and, in my opinion change it from mandatory. If you don’t mind I’ll explain why your logic does miss the mark, respectfully. 1. You claim the Bible was written already before Mary died.ascended. That’s realistically not accurate. If she was 16 when Jesus was born, she would’ve been 49 when he was resurrected. Paul and Peter died around 30 years later, making her 80. The epistles of John, and probably the Gospel of John wasn’t written until she was at the very youngest 85. That’s if you take John’s contributions early. 2. Look at John chapter 3, verses 14-18. 14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up,[a] 15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”[b] 16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. He doesn’t mention belief in the Mom that birthed him. This is one example, which is consistent with his constant theme, belief and trust in him alone. Before you mention that Mary is still alive, Jesus would’ve mentioned it. I mean, he shows us the future in Matthew 24, if this was a key to salvation why wouldn’t he mention it? 3. Galatians 1:8-9; 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse! The first four words of eight make it clear that even if “we” the apostles change it, we should be cursed. Paul knew it would seem, that people would change the Gospel. Yes, the church is supposed to shepherd us through life. However, it is under the authority of the Bible, the Bible is not under the authority of the church. Let me put it this way. Jesus is called the Word by John. The church is the bride. When you listen to the church and not the word, you are choosing the bride over the bridegroom and that is where errors begin. Thanks for your time in reading this. You’re a very likable and intelligent guy and I have enjoyed watching your video.
@pajamaninja2157
18 күн бұрын
i don't really fully understand this position when i hear it to be honest. so if you believe Jesus, put your full faith in Jesus and believe him in all that he says, you believe that he started a church and that church that the gates of hell shall not prevail over, if the church declares a doctrine and you disagree you are disagreeing with Jesus's church and not putting your faith in him. like i don't understand why with Mary it's usually a problem but when its whether god is a trinity or the nature of Christ it's okay when that is also not in the gospel either but also mandatory. also in Gal we aren't contradicting what is there and if it means a literally different gospel I mean Paul summarizes the gospel twice and they're different, one includes son of god the other doesn't (from what i can remember) does that mean he is under god's curse? no they do not contradict each other, they aren't different gospels. so unfortunately, you have misunderstood and separated Jesus from his church and also is a very weird thing to say, like are you trying to be god's mistress? I don't think he'll be that bad of a husband (joke I'm not being serious). okay well if the church is the bride of Christ, they are in union with one another. they have become one flesh so to speak. if you deny one you deny the other. the church cannot go against what is said in scripture nor anything doctrinally in faith and morals to god not because we're so great and super smart, but it is because god is with and protecting his church from error. Plus, the bride will receive the fullness of Christ so if you love God be the bride. i mean this respectful btw text can remove certain communications. god bless man may Mary(😉) and all the angels and saints pray for you and watch over you all the days of your life
@CountCulture27
18 күн бұрын
@@pajamaninja2157I totally read this as respectful and would like to help you understand at least my position. You may not agree, but hopefully you will understand. 1. The church as I perceive it and as it is stated Biblically was not just built on Peter, but Peter’s confession that Jesus was the Son of God, the Christ. So, by that definition, a church that teaches that confession is the true church. In addition, every notable denomination came from the Roman Catholic Church which came from the Catholic Church, which came from the Way. (Eastern Orthodox also came from the Way, so they also are a foundation of Christianity). 2. Why did the church split into a bunch of different denominations? I can summarize it in two verses. Galatians 1:8-9. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse! Paul was an early church leader as you well know. He wrote Romans which is a guide to salvation. Guess how many times Mary is in it? Show me the verses that explain indulgences. The Catholic Church began changing the Gospel and to make sure the gates of Hell didn’t overcome the church, the church was divided….just like the Jews were when they rebelled against God. You probably don’t agree, but hopefully you understand.
@randycarson9812
17 күн бұрын
@@CountCulture27 Point #1: No, the Church was not built on Peter's confession (although that was the catalyst for Jesus' selection of Simon to become the "Kepha" of the Church). This is an argument that has long been put to bed among Protestant scholars, and I have 25 quotes to back this claim. Here is just one: *Donald A. Carson (Baptist)* “On the basis of the distinction between 'petros' . . . and 'petra' . . . , many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere 'stone,' it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the 'rock' . . . Others adopt some other distinction . . . Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken 'rock' to be anything or anyone other than Peter . . . The Greek makes the distinction between 'petros' and 'petra' simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine 'petra' could not very well serve as a masculine name . . . Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been 'lithos' ('stone' of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun - and that is just the point! . . . In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .” (Expositor's Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984], vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Matthew: D.A. Carson), 368) Point #2: No, there is not a "Roman Catholic Church" and a "Catholic Church". This is a myth put forth by Protestants who NEED a historical fiction to justify their separation from the Church founded by Jesus upon Peter and the Apostles. No apostasy occurred; the Catholic Church teaches the same doctrines taught by the early Church. If you like, I can provide you with a list of over 40 Early Church Fathers from AD 33 to AD 500, and you can review their writings to determine whether the pure, pristine, pre-Constantinian Church believed the same doctrines held by the Church today. Sure, we have developed our theology more completely, but the core beliefs are the same. Don't take my word for it; prove this to yourself. As you study what the Fathers wrote, I invite you to provide some details regarding who and when the alleged apostasy of the Catholic Church occurred. Quote some of these Fathers _objecting_ to theological innovations of the apostate "Roman" Church. Share with us some of the history of this mystery church that existed alongside the "Roman" Catholic Church. It should be a good learning experience.
@CountCulture27
17 күн бұрын
@@randycarson9812Hey, Randy. Sure send the link on here or tell me exactly what doc to search up and I’ll get to it. My point is pretty simple. First a lot of people called it the Roman Catholic Church, not just me….but, when Rome nationalized the religion in the 300s, things began to happen. Not all of it was bad, but things changed. The Bible was compiled around that time, so yay. However, this was when the sinless doctrine of Mary began building prominence. Later other questionable doctrine came dealing with Mary, Perpetual virgin, immaculate conception, etc. They weren’t doctrine prior to the Roman Empire being involved. You can say that all church leaders believed in the 100s, but I will look forward to reading your early history so my concerns can dissipate some if this can prove her contemporaries believed all of that about her and it wasn’t just doctrine that grew. Thanks!
@CountCulture27
17 күн бұрын
@@randycarson9812Oh, about Peter, either I mispoke or didn’t say it clearly, I believe that Jesus built his church on Peter and his confession both.
Whether 50% or 100% dna Mary had to be immaculate born without sin otherwise the fruit of her womb would have had to inherit the sin of Adam. Of course being without sin she would have to be as Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden before sinning and her body and soul would have to be incorruptible. as Adam and Eve were meant to be. Hence she had to be assumed into heaven.
Proof of the assumption is the absence of the bodily remains of Mary here on earth. The Catholic Church holds the bodies of all the Apostles. No reason for the Church not to have her body and preserve it as its most important relic except for her bodily assumption.
@CountCulture27
18 күн бұрын
Now that’s a reasonable argument. But, to base salvation on this which is, while reasonable, an argument from silence seems highly suspect and still against the Gospel preached by Paul.
@randycarson9812
17 күн бұрын
@@CountCulture27 How is the assumption of Mary "against the Gospel preached by Paul" in any way? There is no scripture verse which denies Mary's assumption.
@CountCulture27
17 күн бұрын
@@randycarson9812If it is based on salvation for the belief it would be against the Gospel. Not the belief but preaching the belief is necessary for salvation would be.
@randycarson9812
17 күн бұрын
@@CountCulture27 The Catholic Church sees the Marian dogmas as part of the organic growth of doctrine under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. They are *not* considered to be _additions_ to the gospel but rather fuller expressions of the truths contained within the gospel. The Church believes that both Scripture and Tradition, interpreted by the Magisterium, reveal the fullness of the Christian faith. *1. Role of Sacred Tradition and Scripture:* The Catholic Church holds that Divine Revelation is transmitted through both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. The teachings about Mary are part of this broader Tradition that complements and supports Scripture. The Marian dogmas are believed to be rooted in the Apostolic Tradition, which predates the New Testament writings. The Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, has the authority to interpret and define these traditions over time. *2. Development of Doctrine:* The understanding of Christian doctrine has developed over centuries. The Marian dogmas, while not explicitly detailed in Paul's writings, have been recognized and defined by the Church as it deepened its understanding of the faith. Many Christian beliefs have developed over time. *The doctrine of the Trinity, for instance, was not fully articulated in the New Testament but was developed and clarified through early Church councils.* Our understanding of original sin has also developed. The rapture and sola scriptura have been added to the list of Protestant doctrines relatively recently. *3. Complementary Nature of Marian Dogmas:* The Marian dogmas support key Christological doctrines. For example, Mary being the Mother of God (Theotokos) emphasizes Jesus' divine nature. These dogmas are seen as enhancing and deepening the understanding of the mysteries of Christ and the Incarnation. *4. Pauline Silence Does Not Equate to Rejection:* Paul's epistles were written to address specific issues in early Christian communities. The absence of explicit mention of Marian dogmas does not mean Paul rejected them; rather, they may not have been the focus of his writings. While Paul did not write explicitly about Marian dogmas, other parts of the New Testament, such as the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, provide a basis for these teachings. The Church interprets these scriptures in the context of its Sacred Tradition. *5. Authority of the Church:* The Catholic Church believes that its teaching authority (Magisterium) is guided by the Holy Spirit to interpret both Scripture and Tradition correctly. The definitions of Marian dogmas fall under this authority. The Church's authority includes the ability to define teachings that are binding for all Catholics. This is seen not as "adding to the gospel" but as unfolding the full depth of the gospel message. *6. Importance for Salvation:* The Church teaches that the Marian dogmas are important for a full understanding of the Christian faith, but salvation itself is through Christ. The dogmas highlight aspects of faith that help believers understand and appreciate the mystery of Christ more fully. Belief in Marian dogmas is seen as part of a larger, cohesive understanding of the faith that supports one's relationship with Christ. IOW, we're not adding to the gospel; we're expounding it more fully than you are accustomed to hearing.
@jineshfrancis
15 күн бұрын
@@CountCulture27What do you mean.. Are you saying that Paul did not mention Mary's assumption in his letter? Its because she was alive when Paul was martyred.
Luke 1:48. From this day forth, ALL generations shall count me blessed. ALL GENERATIONS, FOREVER. Says it all. The Assumption of The Ever Blessed, Ever Virgin, Holy Mary Mother of God is the only logical conclusion one may reach.
Did Mary undergo labor pains? The prophet Isaiah says No. "Before she was in labor, she gave birth; before her pain came upon her, she delivered a son. Who has heard such a thing? Who has seen such things?" Is66.7-8
For clarity, dogmas and doctrines in the Catholic Church are there clarifying subtle or obvious truths in response to the times all of which are all Biblical and guided by the Holy Spirit and Jesus. Mary did not sin and was born without sin and full of grace and therefore logically Mary did not suffer death as the Holy Spirit speaks this Truth. Death is the wage of sin and separation of the soul from the body as Paul tells for EVEN ONE SIN a person commits the wage is death. Mary therefore is assumed into Heaven and not left to die and rot because Jesus went to Heaven first before us all and therefore assumed her body and soul into Heaven upon his command at the time of her death same as Elijah.
@CountCulture27
20 күн бұрын
The fact that Mary didn’t sin falls in the same realm as this thought. It’s like saying, yes, Santa’s real, the Easter Bunny saw him. The question is there is no Biblical proof of any of the Catholic beliefs about Mary. You can believe them, sure, but to make it a condition that belief in this necessary for salvation without Biblical evidence supporting any of it is a problem, Galatians 1:8-9 talks about the issues with changing the Gospel
@Justyouraverageguy172
20 күн бұрын
@@CountCulture27 “Hail Mary Full of Grace the Lord is with you” Luke 1:28 “Blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus. Holy Mary Mother of God” Luke 1:41-43 “Pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death Amen” James 5:16
@CountCulture27
19 күн бұрын
@@Justyouraverageguy172 28 The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.” That’s the earliest English translation I can find. Geneva. Can you please send me the one that says “Hail Mary?” The Myles Coverdale says “Hayle thou full of grace “ But, it seems to me it is a greeting in every translation in the Bible, not a comment that she is sinless. I have yet to find that quote exactly. Myles is close, but it isn’t Hail Mary, it is Hayle, like a greeting. She was blessed. She was going to carry the Savior of the World. That was the moment of her blessing, not before.
@CountCulture27
19 күн бұрын
By the way you Misquoted your James verse it is actually: 16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. Did you accidentally quote the wrong verse?
@CountCulture27
19 күн бұрын
Lastly, in Luke 1:41-43, that is Elizabeth speaking. She recognizes Mary as the mom of the baby that will be her Lord. That’s the context and from her point of view that’s correct. What does Jesus say? Nothing directly, but here are a couple of verses, please read before and after the ones I give you so your context is accurate. Luke 8:21 Luke 11: 27-28 Jesus himself looks like he was diminishing her role.
Protestants are a funny bunch. We don't know who wrote Matthews gospel; but it is called Matthew's gospel because the Chritian community witnessed that it was Matthews testimony. Yet both the East and the West Church agree and witness that Mary was Assumed into heaven, body and soul; yet Protestants will reject that testimony. Funny hey?
@CountCulture27
20 күн бұрын
Yep, a few reasons. The first one is because it would’ve logically happened before John wrote his Gospel, his epistles and Revelation after her ascension. If she was 16 when she bore Jesus, she would’ve been around 50 when he died around 33AD. Most historians don’t believe John wrote any of his stuff until after 70AD and maybe closer to 80AD. Even at 70 AD she would be pushing 80. Second reason is pretty simple, it was not dogma until 1950. That means it was something that was at least doubted by the early church founders or it would’ve been dogma in the first or second century. For me, the lateness of the doctrine highlights its unreliability and decreases the likelihood it happened. Either way, belief on non belief in this event should not be a salvation issue. But, a lot of Catholics see it this way,even though, again, it wasn’t official doctrine until 1950.
@39knights
19 күн бұрын
@@CountCulture27 Your second reason I have another take on it. The Church only feels the need to define or declare something when it comes into doubt, not because they doubt it and it then becomes clearer. For example it would seem commonsense that among Christians there should be no doubt Jesus is divine. The Church clearly believed Jesus was God right from the get-go; yet a few hundred years later the Church found it necessary to declare as dogma the Divinity of Christ. The tradition is that upon the death of Mary she was placed in a tomb, and it was sealed. However Thomas was late in arriving from his missions to pay his respects. When he arrived they opened the tomb only to find it empty. It was their testimony that she had been assumed into heaven, body and soul. This was such a common belief among Christians (like the divinity of Jesus); that no-one felt a need to define or declare it until an active rejection of this belief arose in factions of Christians to the point the original belief had to be declared forcefully to try and quell the heresies or false theologies about it. Especialy in th growing opposition among protestants who seem to latch onto every basic Christian belief over time and take it to ridiculous places. So traditionally the Christian belief was in her assumption without doubt; but in time it had to be declared and when you really only have oral tradition from the Apostles, it is harder to provide empirical or biblical evidence that would satisfy everyone.
@randycarson9812
19 күн бұрын
@@CountCulture27 Just to be clear: the dogmas was formally defined in 1950, but it was believed right along. You do understand that, correct? IOW, it wasn't INVENTED as something new in 1950.
@CountCulture27
19 күн бұрын
@@randycarson9812Thank you. But even if I believe that it was universal thought in 150AD, which I don’t , you have a big problem with declaring it as a belief necessary for salvation in 1950…or ever frankly. To believe this changes the Gospel message that Paul preached. (Romans for example but in a lot of other areas of the Bible, too.). The message that Paul preached was echoed by the other apostles as he mentioned it was important that everyone was on the same page regarding the Gospel. Anything belief regarding Mary is not a part of the Gospel preached by Paul or any other apostle….or more importantly Jesus. If you say, “Well, the Church decided it as doctrine.” I point you to Galatians 1:8-9. In addition to the words I even we….meaning the church (or at least other apostles). I doubt the Mary doctrine simply because John if anything would’ve mentioned it in his Gospel, his epistles or through Revelation. He does not. Yes, the Bible may not describe everything in detail, but it definitely describes the road to salvation.
@randycarson9812
18 күн бұрын
@@CountCulture27 *Point #1:* Your approach effectively limits us to speculation about what the apostles knew and when they knew it. You force us to taking the few words that they put down in writing and saying to ourselves, "That's it...that's all we have to go on." But what the apostles said and DID were also part of their teaching that scripture instructs us to hold on to. And it does not allow us to consider what the words mean or what the implications of those words are. It took centuries for the Church to work out the hypostatic union. Is that doctrine wrong. Did Christ have one will or two? As a Protestant, I suspect you allow for development of Christological doctrine, but you balk at development of Marian doctrine. Am I wrong? *Point #2:* Your comment about John, etc. is simply an argument from silence. Should we expect to him to have written about Mary? Why? The requirement to believe in certain dogmas for salvation is based on the Catholic understanding of faith as assent to divine revelation, the authoritative role of the Church’s Magisterium, the necessity of dogmas for maintaining unity and orthodoxy, and the belief that these dogmas are essential truths revealed by God. This framework underscores the importance of accepting the fullness of divine revelation as communicated through the Church for a proper relationship with God and for attaining salvation. *Point #3:* Adherence to the Christian faith means ALL of it - not just "mere Christianity". The requirement to believe in certain dogmas for salvation is based on the Catholic understanding of faith as assent to divine revelation, the authoritative role of the Church’s Magisterium, the necessity of dogmas for maintaining unity and orthodoxy, and the belief that these dogmas are essential truths revealed by God. This framework underscores the importance of accepting the fullness of divine revelation as communicated through the Church for a proper relationship with God and for attaining salvation.
I like how you bring out the fact that a Catholic must believe in the dogma of the Assumption or, "you reject your salvation _from the Catholic Church." This shows to everyone what Catholics really believe: that their salvation comes from their denomination. Put another way, a Catholic believes that his salvation hinges upon his Catholicity. This is far different than having faith in Jesus Christ alone as one's Savior from sin. I hope you will agree that the Gospel and the means of salvation, as Christ and the Apostles taught it, can be summed up in this manner: a] All have sinned and fallen short of God's standard of perfection, and without Christ all would be doomed to spend eternity separated from God. b] But God, in His great love, sent His Son to make full propitiation on the cross to redeem us from all of our sins. c] The way God has designated for any of us to receive His gift of saving grace (and His righteousness imputed to us) is: faith that Christ's propitiation is fully sufficient for the complete forgiveness of all of the person's (past, present, and future) sins. Supporting scriptures: John 3:14-18, 6:28-29,35,40,47; James 2:10; Gal. 3:13-14; Rom. 3:23-24, 4:3-8, 6:23; 10:9-13; Eph. 2:8-10. Let's be clear: _this Gospel of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus as the Christ (Messiah), the Savior from sin, is set forth by Jesus and the Apostles. Therefore it cannot be controverted by any denomination or by any later tradition._ Agreed? But after Christ ascended, it only took a couple of decades for some people to begin teaching (falsely) that additional salvific requirements exist. Paul severely warned against this error in his letter to the Galatians: Gal 1:6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel- Gal 1:7 not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. Gal 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. Gal 1:9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. The specific salvific requirement added by the false teachers in Galatia was: you must also be circumcised. However, we can see from the warning in Chapter 1 that any addition to the original Gospel (of Christ crucified for our redemption and of salvation through firm belief in Him) is to be rejected and roundly condemned. Thus the specific example flows to the general proposition, that whenever anyone claims that some legalism is a salvific requirement, _their claim must be rejected_ because it contradicts and conflicts with the pure Gospel which Jesus and the Apostles communicated to us. Therefore, what is our proper response, as faithful Christians, to any denomination which teaches additional salvific requirements? Our response must be to reject those alleged requirements and to consider the denomination in question to have strayed from the true Gospel, for it teaches "another gospel" and it thereby misleads its followers toward perdition. We are called to be "light" and "salt" to the world, so a denomination which teaches another gospel may be likened to salt that has lost its saltiness: Mat 5:13 “You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people's feet.” What, then, are the requirements for salvation which the RCC teaches? Have they added new requirements? Yes, they have. * To be saved, in addition to faith in Jesus Christ, one is required to believe in Mary's Immaculate Conception * To be saved, in addition to faith in Jesus Christ, one must believe in Mary's bodily Assumption The Marian dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are official dogmas of the RCC. The CCC says in #88 that a Catholic is required (irrevocably obliged) to adhere to the official dogmas of the church. Pius IX solemnly proclaimed the dogma of the Immaculate Conception: "... We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which asserts that the Blessed Virgin Mary, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God, and in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, was preserved free from every stain of original sin is a doctrine revealed by God and, for this reason, *_must be_** firmly and constantly believed **_by all_** the faithful"* (DS 2803). When Pius XII declared the dogma of the Assumption, he included this warning: “Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith....let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.” The church of Rome says you can't be a true Catholic... indeed, you cannot be saved by grace through faith in Christ... unless you also believe these and other dogmas of the RCC. Other dogmas? Yes, there are more salvific doctrines taught by the RCC which Christ and the Apostles did not teach. Read _Unam Sanctam_ and _Cantate Domino,_ for example. These dogmas stand as _prima facie_ evidence that the church of Rome teaches a false gospel. It pains me deeply to see my dear Catholic friends being misled! I want you to come to heaven with me! 💞 Won't you please repent and put all of your trust in Christ Jesus?
@CameronRiecker
20 күн бұрын
Thank you for the comment! I think Jesus gave the Church His authority and so what the Church says I follow 😊
@rexlion4510
20 күн бұрын
@@CameronRiecker Cameron, by that logic if the Church comes out with a new dogma that Jesus has returned in a spaceship and he's told the pope that we all need to stop burning petroleum immediately, you will follow? 😉 I hope you are a critical thinker who can evaluate the evidence, not an automaton. The evidence that a heretical contagion has infected the church of Rome is... well, it's _very evident._
@CountCulture27
20 күн бұрын
@@CameronRieckerSo, when Jesus spoke to Nicodemus and outlined clearly what the good news was, you disagree with him? By making this a salvation issue, you are disputing Paul who says in Galatians 1:8-9 the following: 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse Even with apostolic succession notice the use of the phrase, “But even if we…”. If you truly believe that Peter and Paul started the church and were apostles, you have to abandon the idea this is a salvation issue or you denounce Paul. Respectfully, there isn’t another option. The assumption of Mary was not something mentioned by Paul, Peter or anyone. But, and this is key, Jesus is VERY clear that Salvation only comes through him. So, are you worshipping Jesus, the Church or Jesus and the church? Saying the church is established by Jesus, so I can do just what it says. No. Paul gave the Bereans as an example of what we should do. Not to believe humans in power but search the scriptures.
@randycarson9812
19 күн бұрын
While the Marian dogmas were not explicitly detailed in the earliest expressions of Christian faith, the Catholic Church sees them as intrinsically connected to the faith "delivered once for all to the saints" through the development of doctrine, early Church beliefs, and the interpretation of Scripture within the living Tradition of the Church.
@randycarson9812
19 күн бұрын
@@CountCulture27 Paul never made a clear, explicit statement about the Trinity, either. But over time, the Church came to understand the Trinity more and more clearly. The same is true with Original Sin. In the same way, the Marian Dogmas are contained in the faith delivered once for all to the saints. It just takes some thought to realize what is present.
Actually, I'd say the reason we Protestants oppose the dogma is because they like to stick to the Apostolic faith that Jesus and the Apostles taught. Neither Jesus nor the Apostles elevated Mary or taught Marian piety. Besides, when we see Catholics praying the Hail Mary ten times for every Our Father, and some Catholics even calling for her to be declared co-Mediatrix and co-Redemptrix, we see that as a major detraction from the only Savior and Lord, God the Son. The contrast between Jesus (the uncreated God the Son) and any created being whom He made _should be immense._ But the Catholic Church greatly reduces that contrast and elevates Mary to a status that approaches (and perhaps reaches) quasi-divinity. Yes, 100% of Jesus' incarnate genome came from Mary. Whoop-de-doo. You are thinking carnally, not spiritually, when you focus on that fact. Jesus is God, and 0% of His divinity came from Mary. Doesn't divinity trump chromosomes by a magnitude of order? 😀
@randycarson9812
19 күн бұрын
Whoop-de-doo? Catholics and other Christians view Mary as a model of faith and obedience, a powerful intercessor, and a crucial participant in God’s plan of salvation. Her unwavering trust in God and her acceptance of His will are seen as exemplary, inspiring Catholics to deepen their own faith and commitment to God. Mary's virtues, including her humility, purity, and compassion, serve as a guiding example for the faithful. We should all aspire to be immaculate and to be assumed into heaven. We will be immaculate when we are cleansed of all sin, and we will be assumed or caught up to heaven when Jesus returns. Mary serves as the prototype for all Christians, embodying the ideal of a life dedicated to God's service and the hope of ultimate union with Him in heaven.
@rexlion4510
19 күн бұрын
@@randycarson9812 Mary, our model? Our prototype? Nope. We are called to be like Jesus, to imitate Christ. He is our supreme model. Only Christ loved us so much, He suffered on the cross and died for us. Jesus, not Mary, made the supreme sacrifice for you and me. 1Pe 2:21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. Mary, crucial? Not all all; if Mary had declined, God would have incarnated through some other Jewish woman. But Jesus was crucial in the plan of salvation; without Jesus you'd be lost in sin, but without Mary there would've been a Rebecca or a Judith or somebody else. But thanks for validating the deep concerns of all Protestants, that Catholics go totally ga-ga and overboard about Mary. 😆
@randycarson9812
19 күн бұрын
@@rexlion4510 Are we supposed to become like Christ? Sure. But AS DISCIPLES, we cannot do better than to follow Mary's example. She was His first and greatest disciple. Your argument is patently absurd. God knew what He was doing and what Mary's response would be. But okay, suppose it had been Rebecca or Judith...so what? In that case, we would be extolling Rebecca or Judith. But that's not what happened, is it? Finally, I'll make an analogy: when a painting is well-received by reviewers and the public, the artist is honored by the praise his work receives. The artist identifies so closely with his work that praise of the painting is received as praise of his skill and creativity. In the same way, when Catholics honor the saints, they honor God who perfected them in their faith. Saints are venerated or honored (not worshiped) because their lives reflect God's grace and work within them. By honoring the saints, Catholics acknowledge God's role in their sanctification, ultimately giving glory to Him.
@rexlion4510
19 күн бұрын
@@randycarson9812 Rom 11:36 "For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen." Oh yeah, and Mary too. Paul just forgot, right? 🤪 Rev 5:12-23 "saying with a loud voice, “Worthy is -Mary who was obedient- the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!” And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, saying, “To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!” And to Mary.... crickets. 😂 Whatever, dude. You go on venerating creatures, and I'll go on venerating the Creator. No comparison.
@randycarson9812
19 күн бұрын
@@rexlion4510 Ah...there is the error. No, you should NOT "go on venerating the Creator". You should _worship_ the Creator and _venerate_ the heroes of the faith: Mary and the Saints. Worship and veneration are two different things.
by you declaring to the whole world that "our salvation hinges upon believing the catholic dogma's about mary", you set the seal for your own condemnation. go figure, and fear. everything else you say in this video bears no resemblance to the truth of the whole gospel of jesus christ. do you know what gnosticism is? it is secret knowledge about God and Christ that can neither be proven nor disproven, which overrules the revealed word of God in scripture, i.e. from a higher source. (the spirit of antichrist in the 1st century) the ark of the covenant/the mercy seat: upon which the blood of the sacrifice was spilled. hmm. at the foot of, and on the cross? the new covenant in his blood. but- with his own blood he entered the most holy place, not made with hands, once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. i would suggest that is why the ark of covenant is seen in heaven, until the last blood was shed once for all. just common sense, as you say, thinking more correctly. it's all about the blood, jesus fulfilling the law and prophets, by himself. he alone is our salvation. he alone accomplished this.
@Maryismymom2
19 күн бұрын
No one cares if the Protestants condemn us. Let them reject what they want. They're no authority whatsoever.