Pints With Aquinas - Is the Assumption of Mary Biblical and Ancient? (William Albrecht vs Pastor Samuel Farag) | Ep. 591

Starting point is 00:00:00 What if a few minutes with God could change the direction of your entire day? With pray.com, you can begin each morning with powerful daily prayers, inspiring Bible stories, and messages created to strengthen your faith. Whether you need peace, encouragement, or a fresh start, pray.com helps you make prayer part of your everyday life. Download the pray.com app today. Is the bodily assumption of Mary biblical and ancient? Catholic's affirmative, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox. They all preserved belief in Mother Mary's heavenly glorification. Why?

Starting point is 00:00:43 Everything that we need to believe that is considered good works is contained within Scripture. You're reading in 2 Timothy with all due respect is a very bad one. Being reformed, what makes you the superior figure over Luther and these other figures? What's above all of them is the Word of God. Do you admit then that? the bodily assumption is not actually said in scripture. All right, welcome to the debate, everybody. Today we have William Olbrecht and Samuel, forgive me.

Starting point is 00:01:17 How do I pronounce your last name? Farag. Farag. Here, and we are going to be debating the topic, is the bodily assumption of Mary, biblical and ancient. William will be taking the affirmative. Samuel will be taking the negative. You can learn more about these guys below in the description.

Starting point is 00:01:36 But before we jump in, maybe William just tell our list of something about yourself and then Samuel. Yeah, people can find me at patristicpillars.com where there is a heavy emphasis on myeriology and on Christology that I teach both of them. And really, I'm here to have a friendly dialogue with my friend, Pastor Samuel. And to be here with my near and dear brother, Matt, who is a phenomenal moderator. And glad to be with you all the audience. And hopefully people that maybe don't know a whole lot about the topic, maybe they'll learn a lot. Really, really learn how beautiful this teaching is and thrilled to be here with you. Thanks very much.

Starting point is 00:02:10 Pastor Samuel. So I'm a missionary with village missions and a pastor out in Western New York. And I came out of the Oriental Orthodox Church and do a lot of research and discussions with the Oriental Orthodox Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. So really looking forward to having this conversation together with William and on this platform. So thank you for having me. All right. Well, to lay the groundwork, it's really important.

Starting point is 00:02:33 And I think that both of you get a chance to make your case. And so we'll do that right now. William, whenever you're ready, I'll click the timer for 15 minutes. Definitely. And I will begin now. Thank you very much for that. Brothers and sisters, ladies and gentlemen, tonight I will defend the ancient Christian belief that our immaculate Mother Mary,

Starting point is 00:02:54 the Blessed Virgin Mary, was bodily assumed into heavenly glory by the power of God. And I am going to argue that this is biblical and ancient. not a medieval invention and definitely not invention in the late 1900s. I will argue that it is deeply rooted in sacred scripture, biblical typology, the witness of the early church, and the unanimous memory of what I call apostolic Christianity. And the key to understanding the assumption is really understanding who Mary is in salvation history. We refer to Mother Mary as the mother of God, our holy teltocus, the New Eve,

Starting point is 00:03:33 And very importantly, the new Ark of the covenant. Once we realize this biblical truth, the assumption really does cease to be surprising and we're able to fully grasp it, able to fully understand it in a better way. It becomes profoundly fitting and deeply biblical. The old Ark was the holiest object in ancient Israel's possessions. The Ark of the Covenant, indeed, our Lord himself designed it, God. and the ark represented God's throne, the presence of God, God's dwelling among his people. Hebrews 9-4 tells us the old ark contained stone tablets of lop, the manna from heaven, and Aaron's priestly rod.

Starting point is 00:04:16 Now, the ark was so holy that priests purified themselves before even approaching it. You had to be completely pure before you could even approach it. Israel trembled before the old ark. and if you touched it unlawfully, it brought death. The ark was never treated casually. It was sacred because it bore the very presence of God. Now, that ark was overshadowed by God's glory. In Exodus 40, we read,

Starting point is 00:04:43 The cloud covered the tent of the meeting and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. The Greek Old Testament word used there is Episciazo, overshadow. That becomes critical in the gospel of St. Luke. When the Archangel Gabriel greets Mary, he does greet her and we then read in the gospel of St. Luke chapter 1 verse 35, the Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.

Starting point is 00:05:09 St. Luke is deliberately using Ark language. Mary becomes the new holy dwelling of God, which is why we refer to her as our holy Teotokos as the mother of God. The Bible lays it out for you. Now the old ark contains shadows. Mother Mary bears God incarnate. Now, what did the ark contained? Remember the ark contained the word of God in stone, the manna from heaven, Aaron's priestly rot. Mother Mary contains the eternal word,

Starting point is 00:05:38 the Lagos made flesh incarnate, the real, the true bread from heaven, and the eternal archaedaius, the eternal high priest. The Old Testament contained shadows and symbols, as Colossians tells you, Mother Mary contains the fulfillment. But that old ark was overlaid with pure gold. Indeed, the Hebrew and the Greek word is utilized for pure, pure gold. Mother Mary is read in Luke 128 is, Kejaditomen is full of grace. It's all holy. She's filled with grace. Now, the old ark bore God's covenant, presence in a powerful way. Mother Mary bore him literally in her womb. Wrap your mind around that.

Starting point is 00:06:22 And we don't have time to go through every single deliberate parallel between Mary, and the art, but St. Luke will structure its gospel in order to identify Mary as a new Ark. In the Old Testament, the old ark traveled to the Hell Country of Judah. 2. Samuel 6. Mother Mary travels to the Hell Country of Judah in the Gospel of St. Luke. In the Old Testament, David asked, how can the Ark of the Lord come to me? Well, the New Testament, St. Elizabeth asked, how is it granted me that the mother of my Lord should come to me. Direct grammatical parallels.

Starting point is 00:06:55 Now, if the ark in the old Tust covenant was the Ark of Yahweh, well, then when Elizabeth says, Mothereth my Lord replacing Ark for Mother, well, that is a Christological point, that Mother Mary indeed as a new Ark is also, importantly, the Mother of God, our Holy Mother of God. The Old Testament, David left before the Ark. In the New John, St. John leaps before the ark.

Starting point is 00:07:21 are parallel after parallel after parallel. And you may be wondering, well, what happened to the old ark? Well, it vanished. It disappears. After the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem, the ark vanishes from history. Because the old ark was temporary. A greater ark was coming. The earthly ark faded away because the heavenly fulfillment arrives in our Mother Mary.

Starting point is 00:07:44 We've got to remember Psalm 132 in the Old Testament. Arise, O Lord, it tells you, into your resting place. You and the Ark of your holiness, you and the Ark of your Hagiasmatas, holiness. Notice there. The Lord rises, the Greek word therefore bodily resurrection. And the Ark rises with Him. Now that Psalm originally referred to God entering his temple, but it ultimately points to the ascension of Christ.

Starting point is 00:08:11 And the heavenly glorification of the new Ark. The King enters heavenly glory. The Ark will accompany him. And Acts 2 will apply Psalm 132 to our Lord. St. Peter will directly invoke Psalm 132 showing you in the fuller picture, it is Christological. In Acts 2.30, he quotes it directly. God has sworn an oath to David that he would set one of his descendants upon the throne. Quoting from verse 11 directly.

Starting point is 00:08:38 Peter's showing you, this is fulfilled in the bodily resurrection of our Lord, the bodily ascension of our Lord, and our Lord's heavenly enthronement. So Psalm 132 is fulfilled Christologically. But Psalm 132 also has the ark entering God's resting place. And who is the new covenant ark? Mother Mary. That is why when we approach Revelation 1119, we read, Then God's temple in heaven was open.

Starting point is 00:09:06 And the ark of his covenant was seen in his temple. That should astonish you. The ark has reappeared, but the ark was lost buried away. But the ark has reappeared. And where? In heaven? But the vision continues immediately. Indeed, it continued like that in the original Greek as well,

Starting point is 00:09:25 because Revelation 12 was connected to the end of Revelation 1119. And without interruption, St. John then tells you, and a great sign, Semi-o appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with a sun. The chapter divisions are artificial. The text flows continuously. St. John sees the Ark. Then he sees the woman.

Starting point is 00:09:45 The transition is intentional. The ark imagery will culminate in the woman. Why? Because Mary is the new ark. But where is that ark? That ark is present in heaven. In Revelation 12, we read, The woman gives birth to a male child

Starting point is 00:10:00 who will rule all the nations with a rod of iron. Now, that is directly quoting from the Old Testament messianic Psalms. Who gave birth to that figure? Mary did. Therefore, that woman primarily in Revelation 12 is our immaculate mother Mary. present to you bodily in heaven. Now I know my friend, Pastor Samuel, may say, well, that is symbolizing the new Israel.

Starting point is 00:10:24 Fine. And with that we can get into the dialogue, but we recognize scripture has multi levels of imagery. Primarily, we present that the most ancient view and the biblical view is that she is the mother of the Messiah primarily, Mother of God, Mother Mary. And you cannot ignore the language of the bodily presence of Mother Mary. Mary in Revelation 12.

Starting point is 00:10:48 Revelation 12 will emphasize a head, feet, a womb, birth. The woman has a crown in her head, the moon beneath her feet, giving birth bodily, embodied royal imagery. And in Revelation, bodily, heavily in throne, in language is especially associated with our Immaculate Mother Mary and with Christ. It matters heavily because every saint's soul goes to heaven. But Mary is shown in particularly in language. particularly tied into that shown of Christ as well.

Starting point is 00:11:19 Why? Because Revelation 12 presents her as heavenly glorified, and all the earliest interpretations, extant Greek ones, back that up as well. Our Lord and Savior and Mother Mary are uniquely linked. Notice how Revelation will present our Lord enthroned and the woman glorified. The imagery is royal in heavenly,

Starting point is 00:11:39 because indeed our mother is the Kabirah, the great lady, the queen of heaven. And that is the imagery we would expect in the Davidic kingdom. Our Lord ascends bodily, and the new Ark appears bodily glorified in heaven. Our Immaculate Mother Mary is uniquely associated with the victory of her son. And the bodily assumption fits in perfectly. Would God allow that womb that bore the incarnate word to decay? Would the new Ark, far holier than the Ark of Moses be abandoned to corruption?

Starting point is 00:12:13 The early church says no. The old ark was treated with terror and reverence. Who's the touched it and lawfully and was struck dead? How much holy or how much more holy is the living ark who bore God himself? And Mother Mary's assumption comes through Christ's victory. It isn't independent of Jesus. It is entirely because of him. Our Lord conquered death, corruption the grave.

Starting point is 00:12:37 Mother Mary can uniquely participate in that because she did uniquely participate in the incarnation. Her bodily assumption magnifies our Lord, not her, magnifies our Lord. She does not compete with him. He bodily ascended. She is bodily assumed. Now, the early church fathers echo this as well. The fathers repeatedly proclaim Mother Mary's holiness and heavenly glorification. St. John Damascene tells us it was fitting that she who had kept her virginity intact in childbirth

Starting point is 00:13:07 should keep her body incorrupt after death. him. St. Gregory of Turus, the Lord commanded that her body be taken up on a cloud into paradise. St. Germanus of Constantinople, your virginal body is entirely holy, entirely pure, entirely the dwelling place of God. Over and over, what you're going to find is you're going to find the early church fathers connecting Mary within corruption, with heavenly glorification, and with the arch imagery. Indeed, Mother Mary is identified as the new Ark of the New Covenant as early as the 100s in the post-biblical era, meaning when the early church is writing and proclaiming Mother Mary as the new Ark, St. John is probably still alive. And they would have done that because they would

Starting point is 00:13:54 have been aware of her being the new Ark from the Gospel of St. Luke and the language laid out there in St. John's Apocalypse as well. But we also look at the liturgical memory of the church, because indeed that is the topic of the debate today. Is it ancient? And the ancient Christians did celebrate the Dormition. And Mother Mary's heavenly glorification. It wasn't isolated to one region. You had East and West preserving it.

Starting point is 00:14:19 Liturgical memory matters enormously because the church praised what it believes. And the Catholic was the Universal Church, East and West, whether you look at the Latin fathers, whether you look at the Greek, whether you look at the Syriac, I don't care where you look. the universal Catholic church remembered Mother Mary's bodily glorification and taught that. All of the apostolic churches preserved this belief. I know there was a particular time when the body of Christ was united, when the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox and Syriac, they were all united.

Starting point is 00:14:51 We were one. It was affirmed then. And it most definitely was affirmed after. And it most definitely is still affirmed today. And I don't think Pastor Samuel, whom I have great respect for, will claim that it isn't preserved that way. The Catholics affirmate Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox. All the ancient Eastern Christians preserve it. That is massive evidence.

Starting point is 00:15:16 These churches divided over many disputes, and even today, we're separated over many of them. Yet they all preserved belief in Mother Mary's heavenly glorification. Why? Because the belief predates their divisions. it belongs to apostolic Christianity itself. It does. And it even belongs to the earliest reformers. You're going to find that in today's debate,

Starting point is 00:15:41 not only is the early church in my side, but the early reformers are in my side as well. Because you're going to find early figures agreeing to that. The earliest reformers did not reject Mary and Honor the way modern Protestants do. The rejection of the bodily assumption develops much later,

Starting point is 00:15:58 and I argue under anti-Catholic polemics. So the evidence is powerful today. We have the Old Testament arc, pointing to Mary, St. Luke presenting Mary as a new arc, Psalm 132 powerfully showing you the enthroned king and the ark entering heavenly rest. Acts to applying Psalm 132 to our Lord's ascension, Revelation 11, revealing the ark in heaven,

Starting point is 00:16:24 and Revelation 12 immediately presenting the glorified woman, and the church father is in the liturges even before them proclaiming her heavenly glorification. And the apostolic church has preserved this doctrine to this day. Even the earliest reformers retain it. So the bodily assumption is not an isolated Marian teaching. It is about Christ's victory over death, the holiness of the incarnation, the glory of the new covenant. And really, the beautiful destiny awaiting the faithful. We can point to that as well.

Starting point is 00:16:56 And to be very clear, that is the beauty of it. That is why the church defined it when she did. Because we want to, in a world that was wrecked by war at the time, the Pope wanted to remind people, we have a beautiful destiny awaiting us. That is bodily glorification. And the bodily assumption reminds us, our Lord will glorify us one day as well in glorified bodies. But my argument today, and I'm very eager to engage with pastor, is that to deny the bodily assumption of Mary, is that merely to reject a late doctrine? It is to move away from the ancient

Starting point is 00:17:33 stream of apostolic Christianity itself, because this is biblical and this most definitely is ancient. It was believed by all the churches early on. It still is today. Thank you so much. So years ago, a husband and a wife in Lithuania sent me one of their handmade rosaries, and I was so struck by it, the weight, the quality, the care in every detail. It was seriously the most beautiful rosary I'd ever seen. Now, in collaboration with Theotokos Rosaries, I'm making two of their hand-crafted rosaries available to you over at dailywire.com slash shop. Italian olive wood, gold, plated brass, micro-braid cord built for a lifetime of prayer, each one made by hand in Lithuania. These are not just beautiful rosaries.

Starting point is 00:18:19 They can be family heirlooms that you would pass down. Use for personal devotion. You could also give them as a wedding gift, ordination gift, confirmation gift, or for graduation. Now, the first batch sold out right away. So, pre-order yours now at dailywired.com slash shop before the next batch is gone. That's dailywire.com slash shop. All right, right on time. Thank you very much. Sam, you have 15 minutes whenever you begin speaking. I'll click the timer. Thank you. Is the bodily assumption of Mary biblical and ancient? That is the question William and I will be answering today. As a faithful Roman Catholic, William must defend this doctrine because it is not an optional belief. It is one of the Marian dogmas that are essential for salvation.

Starting point is 00:19:07 However, as much as one can try, the bodily assumption of Mary is nowhere found in Scripture, and the evidence of it in church history is much too late. However, before we get to that, let us be clear about why this conversation is so vital. The Roman Catholic Church maintains that its magisterium functions as an infallible judge in all religious matters. This means their judgments are as binding to Christians as the very word of God. However, the biblical doctrine of Soliscriptora stands in sharp contrast to the man-made and man-focused decrees of Rome's magisterium. On November 1st, 1950, Pope Pius I, 12, defined the assumption of Mary to be a dogma of faith. He said, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma,

Starting point is 00:20:03 that the Immaculate Mother of God, be ever-version Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed bodily and soul to heavenly glory. Again, it was to be stressed that not a single verse in store, scripture can be found to make this bold claim. In fact, scripture presents another story altogether. 1 Corinthians 15, verse 20 to 23 says that all believers will have resurrected bodies at Jesus' second coming. Mary very much is included there. If that were not the case, the Holy Spirit would have made that very clear in God's word. Belief in this doctrine is one thing. However, the declaration that it is dogma means that this is a doctrine that separates. As Pope Pius X12 said in the document titled

Starting point is 00:20:56 the Most Bountiful God in paragraph 47, it is forbidden to any man to change this. Our declaration, pronouncement, and definition, or by rash attempt to oppose and counter it, if any man should presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostle Peter and Paul. This is what makes this conversation so vital. Are genuine Bible-believing Christians who surrender their lives to Christ really under God's wrath for not believing something that is missing from Scripture

Starting point is 00:21:35 appeared late in church history and only became a dogma in 1950? Of course not. In fact, the Roman Catholic Church making this doctrine a dogma means that as a church, They are the ones actually under God's curse. They are the ones who are under anathema. As recorded in Galatians 1, verse 8 through 9, Paul says,

Starting point is 00:21:58 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preach to you, let him be a cursed. As we have said before, so now I say it again, if anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be a cursed. In Paul's day, Judaizers were misleading. leading the Galatians. The Judaizers agreed with all the teachings of Paul. You could even call them Trinitarian. However, they added the requirement of some practices from the old covenant, like circumcision. And that act alone meant that the Judaizers taught a different gospel that could not save. Adding any doctrine as a mandatory belief or practice is to make void the word of God. And that is, unfortunately, what Rome has done with the dogma of the bodily assumption of

Starting point is 00:22:47 Mary, along with many other dogmas. Based on all the evidence we have in Scripture, we have no reason to believe that Mary's fate is different from what Scripture teaches is normative for every godly Christian. She died, as it says, in Hebrews 927, and just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment. Her body was buried and returned to dust, as it says in Genesis 319. You are dust, and to dust you shall return. Her soul was taken to heaven, as it says in 2 Corinthians 5.1, which says, for we know that if the tent that is our earthly home is destroyed, we have a body, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. And she, like all faithful followers of Christ

Starting point is 00:23:38 who have passed away, awaits the general resurrection of the body, as it says in 1st Corinthians 15, 42 to 44, which says, so is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable. What is raised is imperishable. It is shown in dishonor and it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness. It is raised in power. It is sown a natural body. It is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. However, in paragraph five of the most bountiful God, It says, now God has willed that the blessed Virgin Mary should be exempt from this general rule. She, by an entirely unique privilege, completely overcame sin by her immaculate conception. And as a result, she was not subject to the law of remaining in the corruption of the grave.

Starting point is 00:24:33 And she did not have to wait until the end of time for the redemption of her body. Another bold claim from silence by the Roman Catholic Church. In fact, Roman Catholic historian Emin Duffy candidly admitted the problems with the dogma of the bodily assumption of Mary when he says, the definition embarrassed many Catholic theologians since it was unsupported in Scripture and was unknown to the early church, and it was a disaster for relations with other churches. Again, the Bible mentions nothing about Mary's assumption into heaven. The Bible mentions nothing about Mary having an exemption from, from her not having to wait until the end of time for the redemption of her body.

Starting point is 00:25:18 There is no doubt that the Holy Spirit did not just forget to mention these crucial facts in the Bible. If such a doctrine were as significant as Rome claims, and if it were of a selfific nature as their dogma is presented, it would be found in Scripture. But it's not. The Roman Catholic Church has a history of claiming that Scripture does not have all the truth, need to be saved. However, Paul dismantles their arguments based on the Holy Spirit-inspired words found in his writings, such as what is recorded in 2 Timothy 3, 13 to 17, which says, all scripture is breached out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training, and righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good

Starting point is 00:26:07 work. So if this Marian dogma were true, God would have clearly taught it to us in the Bible. But since he hasn't, we can safely conclude it is not a self-ific doctrine that we are required to believe. Now, one of the most used passages that the Roman Catholic Church attempts to use to defend the bodily assumption of Mary is Revelation 12. The interpretation is that the woman mentioned is Mary. However, when we compare this passage to others in Scripture, we clearly see that this is a symbol of the people of God under persecution. Catholic Apologists will grant that this passage may truly be about people of God under persecution, but they claim the passage has multiple interpretations, including the woman being Mary.

Starting point is 00:26:54 However, Dr. Stephen J. Shoemaker, who is often used as a scholar to defend it in earlier date of the bodily assumption of Mary, says, that is why interpreting the woman as Mary has no precent in the church until after the time people began to wonder about Mary's ultimate fate. Furthermore, for the Roman Catholic Church to interpret the woman from Revelation 12 to be Mary is to cause more problems than it solves for them. If the woman in Revelation 12 is Mary, then this will conflict with yet another key Roman Catholic Mary and dogma, the Immaculate Conception of Mary. For Revelation 122 says, Mary was pregnant and was crying out in birth pains and the agony

Starting point is 00:27:36 of giving birth. The woman in Revelation 12 experienced pain when delivering Jesus, according to Catholic interpretation. However, if she were immacally conceived, then she would be immune to the curse of Eve. So it is ironic that to accept the bodily assumption of Mary as dogma, it is at the cost of two other infallible Marian dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church. On top of that, even if one grants to Catholics the interpretation that the woman in Revelation 12 was Mary, no bodily assumption is mentioned whatsoever in the text. Nothing is biblical about this man-made doctrine. Another appeal from Rome for church history is found in the late 4th century saint,

Starting point is 00:28:19 Epiphanus of Salamis, who lived between AD 315 and 403. He noted that while the end of Mary's life was not explicitly known, some believed she was translated to heaven without dying, similar to Elijah. He acknowledged widespread traditions about her unique end, but remained uncertain if she died or was assumed directly in some of his early writings. Although later writings may indicate that he believed in the bodily assumption of Mary, he never made this claim from Scripture. In fact, he says, If any think I am mistaken, moreover, let them search through the scriptures and neither find Mary's death, nor whether or not she died, nor whether or not she was buried. Despite the lack of real evidence, Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen says,

Starting point is 00:29:12 Mary became the first human person to realize the historical destiny of the faithful as members of Christ's mystical body. Beyond time, beyond death, and beyond judgment. By her assumption, she goes ahead, like her son, to prepare a place for us. No, Mary does not prepare a place for us. Jesus does. Dogmas like the bodily assumption of Mary only lead to unhealthy idol, of Mary. However, Jesus was more concerned about our faithfulness to studying the Word of God and obeying it, rather than building doctrines and beliefs about his earthly mother. Just look with me at Luke 11, verse 27 to 28, which says, as he said these things, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, blessed is the womb that bore you and the breast at which you nursed,

Starting point is 00:30:01 but he said, blessed rather, are those who hear the word of God and keep it. Scripture clearly does not give the same attention to Mary as the Roman Catholic Church does. Not even close. Yes, Mary is a faithful woman of God. Yes, Mary is the most blessed among all women. However, her blessing is not a result of her good works or Mary. She is the most blessed due to the fact that she is the only one who can say that she gave birth to the Messiah. Childbirth itself is a blessing from God, and the greatest of births is the birth of Jesus Christ, God in the flesh. So again, it was pointing to Christ. Acts 1.14 is the actual last reference to Mary in Scripture, which says all these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer together with the woman and Mary the

Starting point is 00:30:49 mother of Jesus and his brothers. If Marian dogmas were as essential to our salvation as the magisterium claims, that would not be the case. In fact, if Mary truly bodily assumed into heaven, the Bible would have recorded it just as it did for Enoch and Elijah, who were actually taken bodily into heaven by the mere good pleasure of God. Note too that Enoch and Elijah, although faithful, were never presented as being taken up to heaven due to an immaculate conception or intrinsic sinlessness. Mary's proposed bodily assumption is grounded in an entirely different set of causes, which are based on unbiblical conclusion. and decrees. As followers of Christ, we are not to be intimidated by a magisterium that claims that

Starting point is 00:31:39 we must follow their flawed doctrinal conclusions under the threat of God's wrath. This strategy did not work for the religious elite of Jesus' Day with the Pharisees and the scribes, and it does not work today in our day with the Roman Catholic Church. Elevating one's man-made and man-centered doctrines to the same level as God's commands is to make null and voice. the word of God. As our Lord and Savior said in Mark 7 verse 13, which says, thus, sorry, which he says, thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down and many others, many other such things you do. So to those with ears to listen, stand on the only inerrant and infallible source of truth given to us by God, the scriptures. To God be all

Starting point is 00:32:29 the glory. Amen. People talk a lot about voting with their wallet and while elections happen every few years, you actually cast financial votes almost every single day. Every subscription, purchase, every monthly bill. So here's one that's incredibly easy. Switch your phone service to Charity Mobile. There are proudly pro-life wireless provider that offers nationwide coverage, no contracts, affordable plans, starting under $50 before taxes and fees and customer support staffed by pro-life Americans. But what really sets them apart is that every month they donate part of what you pay to a pro-life or pro-family charity that you select. Over three decades, that's translated into millions of dollars supporting life. You're paying for phone service anyway. Why not support your values while

Starting point is 00:33:16 you're at it? Go to charitymobile.com slash Matt Frad. Use promo code Matt Frad to receive a free phone with every new line plus free activation and free shipping. Again, that's charitymobile.com Fred. One of my favorite apps that I've been using for a long time now is Hallow. It is the number one prayer and meditation app in the world. And for good reason, it's incredibly sophisticated. You can download it now and you can start praying along with the Holy Rosary. I've met people who've learned how to pray the Holy Rosary on Hallow. They have biblical meditation, sleep stories and a whole host of other things. It's really, really excellent. If you've been wanting to build a more consistent prayer life, go to hello.com slash Matt Frad and get three months free. I always think this is crazy.

Starting point is 00:34:05 They're going to give you this for 90 days. And on day 89, if you decide you don't want it, you don't get charged. But I think you'll have it. I still pay for it. Hello.com slash Matt Frad. Do it right now. Get three months for free. All right. Excellent. Thank you to both of you. That was really well laid out. We're now going to move into a time of cross-examination. And the one thing I want the audience to know about cross-examination is, so for example, William's going to cross-examine Sam, then Sam William. Since William will begin, it's not considered rude to interrupt Sam or to make him change topic or to push him and prod him. Likewise, when Sam cross-examines William, it's not rude. If he cuts him off, that's, that's his prerogative. Obviously, it's not the

Starting point is 00:34:50 role of the cross-examiner to just start pontificating. The point is to be asking questions, but I just wanted to make that clear right up front. So with that out of the way, William, whenever you are ready to cross-examine, as soon as you begin, I'll click the 15-minute timer. Let's double-check audio good, all audio good, everything you can hear me, Pastor? Perfect. Wonderful. Let's begin.

Starting point is 00:35:10 Okay, we'll begin now. Thank you for that, Pastor. Now, I want to go in it very quickly. You said the belief was too late, and then you brought up St. Epithanus. And you noted that he denied the bodily assumption, and you said that he could find it nowhere in scripture. Is that correct? Well, originally he did, and there's other writings that would indicate that he later on came to that conclusion, but he did his writings indicate that he didn't see it in Scripture.

Starting point is 00:35:35 So even if he adopted the belief, it doesn't mean that he adopted it from Scripture. Well, the question, the debate is not in Soliscripture, though. The debate is whether or not the bodily assumption is ancient as well. So in terms of it being ancient, that would qualify part of the debate thesis. You do admit that early on in Panerian, 78, he is agnostic. to it and then later his ultimate word is belief and the assumption you you admit that so when when we define ancient um and we're talking about biblical so first the first thing is is seeing is this doctrine both biblical meaning we can actually find it in scripture and is an ancient and if you look

Starting point is 00:36:13 at epiphenous that that is a quite a bit of time um from the scriptures that that is many hundreds of years after christ so okay i i i understand that you i'm sorry i understand that you i understand that you know you it's a few hundred years later granted uh it still predates a lot of it it predates a fixed uh fixed canon in certain parts of the east so i would consider it ancient i just wanted to be settled for the audience that initially you recognize he denies well he doesn't deny it he's agnostic and then his final word is that he does believe in it you're you do concede that point that epithaneous final word is believe okay okay now you you had mentioned, you had said that this would conflict with the immaculate conception if we take Revelation

Starting point is 00:37:02 12 to be meriological. Are you aware that the Greek word there for birth pains used for the woman is the Greek word basanizo, and that is never used for actual physical literal birthing pain with a woman in all of Greek literature. Okay. No, I've heard that before. So I just want to make sure you're aware of that because you made the claim that if we take Revelation 12 to be mariological, that that would conflict with the immaculate conception. And I've got to press you on that. Very clearly, we do not take the birth pain there, the pangs of birth to be literal. We clearly take them to be metaphorical. So if that is the case, and that Greek word is never used for actual physical birthy pain, we would press you and I would press you and say, this does not conflict with the.

Starting point is 00:37:52 immaculate conception. So it's talking about birth and it's talking about having pain while having birth. So again, with revelation being an apocalyptic writing, and we know that there's a lot of symbolism within it, if one is to assume and use the interpretation that the woman is actually then giving birth to, for example, Christ, and we're going to use a literal interpretation there, then when there's pains being talked about for the other offspring, then that has to be also then understood literally. We can't. But that's the issue there, though, Pastor. That word is not used for other offspring.

Starting point is 00:38:25 That word is never, ever used for literal physical birthing pain. That's the issue. That Greek word is not used that way. So it isn't the matter of it else we're being used that manner. It simply is not used that way. And I recognize that there is a language of birthing pain, but St. John also uses it. When our Lord compares his passion, he draws a parallel to birthing pain.

Starting point is 00:38:47 And that most definitely is not literal birthing pain. He's comparing it to the passion. So my only point here is you can't say that it conflicts with the immaculate conception. If that word there is clearly metaphorical and it can be interpreted in other manners, that's my only point there. It's not a literal birthing pain. And I would say that the reason it's not a literal birthing pain because it's not actually about Mary at all.

Starting point is 00:39:09 But if one is going to assume that that is about Mary, which again, there's a lot of problems I believe with that, that's another problem that you have because that also has to be seen as literal. But it wasn't meant to be about Mary. So you say that it's meant to be seen as literal, yet you concede and admit that Greek word is never used for literal birthing pain. No, I'm saying that I don't see it as I see it, for example, as the persecution of the body of Christ. That's how I see it as interpreting. But if somebody is going to interpret it as Mary, and again, I think that there's problems with that,

Starting point is 00:39:44 that you would have to then see when it's talking about the birthing pains, that is also literal. But the birthing pain is literal in the passion. So the very same author uses birthing pain for the passion. That isn't literal. I simply do not agree that if you take this as being married, that then the birthing pain is literal. It most definitely isn't. The birthing pain in John's Gospel at the passion is not meant to be taken in a literal fashion. So, I mean, I would just offer that particular pushback.

Starting point is 00:40:11 But you also claim that the woman is not Mary. So I've got to ask you, that woman, the child of that woman, is the Messiah. We can agree with that, right? Or I know some people don't agree. Do you agree with that? Sure. Yeah. No, I see that as a Messiah. Okay. Now, it quotes, it applies Psalm 2 to Jesus. He is the one that will rule the nations with a rod of iron, right? Is that correct, Pastor? Correct. Who is the woman in history that physically gave birth to the child that will rule the nations with the rod of iron? Yeah, Mary, obviously. And yet you say Revelation 12 is not Mary. Is that correct? Correct. Because yes, Jesus came from Mary, but also Jesus came from the chosen people. That is also true. And again, when you look at the rest of the passage.

Starting point is 00:40:59 But physically, though, in a physical birth, in a physical birth, there's only one person that physically gave birth to Jesus. That would be Mother Mary. And you just admitted to the audience. You agree he is the one that will rule the nations with a rod of iron. And historically, Mary gave birth to the one that will rule the nations with a rod of iron. You agree with that. But then you say that Mary is not the one that gives birth to the one that will rule the nations with a rod of iron in Revelation 12. Yeah, because it's talking about God's people.

Starting point is 00:41:26 And oftentimes in scripture, it talks about, Jesus coming through a certain people, as the Messiah promised through his people. Is it possible that it has multiple layers of imagery there, that it could be God's people and also Mary? She is part of God's people. Would that not be also another possible reading? Or do you eliminate Mary completely? There are definitely different interpretations of Scripture that can be seen as having multiple meanings. But when I interpret it, I don't see it as being Mary. When you interpret it, that's the big issue there then.

Starting point is 00:41:58 So the earliest interpretations, that gets from my next question. Do the earliest interpretations of Revelation 12 that identify that woman, do they agree with you that it isn't Mary? So earliest interpretation that we have a record of does not necessarily indicate that it's true. The Pharisees, when they were having debates of Christ, often appeal to the earliest interpretations of rabbis. And Jesus corrected them by using Sola Scriptera. He practiced Sola Scripura and corrected them. I understand what you believe is, though. I know what your belief is.

Starting point is 00:42:30 My question has nothing to do with the Pharisees. It has to do with the way you interpret it. I understand how you interpreting your private interpretation. But my question is not that. My question is, do the earliest interpretations of Revelation 12 agree with your reading of it? I would have to look at an overview. I know that there are some people who agree with it. But I don't know that all of them do agree with it.

Starting point is 00:42:51 But I would have to look at all of the world. The earliest does not agree. And I'm going to take it even further. You spoke of Solar Scriptura. Now, I've got another issue there. Why is it that the way that you read Revelation 12 is in a particular way, why do the reformers, the earliest commentaries in Revelation 12, you would admit that they, the earliest ones,

Starting point is 00:43:13 read Revelation 12 in a meriological fashion. Would you at least admit that point? Oh, they do, but I'm also a reformed Baptist, so I disagree with Luther and Calvin on various strong points. Oh, no, I understand. You can agree. You can disagree. No, no, I understand.

Starting point is 00:43:27 I simply want the audience to know that, among the earliest reformers, they viewed Mary as the primary figure of Revelation 12, the earliest reformers. I understand you can disagree with them on all kinds of issues. That to me is a problem in and of itself. And that gets me to my next question is that being reformed

Starting point is 00:43:46 and harking to Solis Scriptura, don't take the offense at this, but what makes you the superior figure over Luther and these other figures that all the early proto-reformers and early reformers believed in the bodily assumption. But now don't take offense. Now we get to Pastor Samuel and Pastor Samuel's right over and above them and you deny it. How is there coherence there in Solar Scriptura then? Yeah. And I think

Starting point is 00:44:11 it's a great question, no offense at all. But the reason is because what's above all of them is the word of God. And what we see from Christ and what we saw off the examples, for example, from the Bereans is that just because an apostle or someone of authority is saying something doesn't mean that we don't check out scripture. And in fact, when Jesus was constantly rebuking the Pharisees, for example, He says, have you not read that scripture is meant to be used in a way of Soliscriptura? That the scriptures are clear enough and they are good enough for us to use in order for us to actually interpret. So your version of Soliscriptura, you see things that they didn't see enough to deny the bodily assumption. I mean, you read it very clearly different than they did.

Starting point is 00:44:48 The proto-reformers and the early reformers were trying. They believe they were cleansing the church. And Soloscriptura was their doctrine, yet they still held to this. There's something that you see to where, as a good Berean, you can. clearly see something in the text that they didn't see. Is that correct? Well, considering, yeah, considering that they were on the cusp of it all, and they actually grew up Catholic and they had biases and they didn't have the scriptures in their own languages for many generations of other scholars to look to. It actually makes a lot of sense that once there's a reformer, has to continue

Starting point is 00:45:16 to be a reformation to get to the original. It actually makes a lot of sense because I have a lot more church history to look at. I have a lot more interpretation. So let me ask you this. Are you a master of the languages the way that they were? The scholars that we have now who are fluent in those languages and the word studies I can do in Lagos and other biblical programs can provide the same information. Logos Bible software is the answer then over and above even the reformers. But I want you for the audience to understand, you do recognize the early proto-reformers and reformers.

Starting point is 00:45:44 They are on my side this today. They believed in the bodily assumption. You do admit that. Oh, and I would agree that they agree with the perpetual virginity of Mary. That doesn't necessarily make it right. But no, I will grant that. That's a historical, accurate information. Absolutely.

Starting point is 00:45:57 Great. Now, let's move to the next one. You said Revelation 12 that that would conflict with a perpetual virginity. And you're referring to Revelation 1217, where it says, The dragon became theorist of the woman went to make war with her offspring. And in those who keep the commandments of God, a Catholic is going to tell you that that is a spiritual church. That is not actual physical offspring.

Starting point is 00:46:21 You believe that if we take Revelation 12 to be Mary, then this is about literal physical offspring. Revelation 1217, right? If one is to assume that it is Mary and they're going to see things as literal, then that would also be literal too, yeah. But how is that the case if just a few chapters later, in the same vein and the same context, you're actually refuted, Pastor, because Revelation 12, that Greek, the exact Greek, is echoed in Revelation 14 and were told that those who keep the commandments of God are actually

Starting point is 00:46:55 the saints. They're not physical children that the woman gave birth to. the Greek is exact in Revelation 1412. Here is the endurance of the saints. And saints is repeated over and over. And then the Greek is repeated exact. The saints are those who keep the commandments of God and have the faith in Jesus. The exact Greek of Revelation 12, meaning that's the spiritual church.

Starting point is 00:47:17 Those aren't actual physical children that the woman had. How would you respond to that? Well, that fits along with my actual interpretation of that passage. But again, if one is going to literally look at this as Mesmerian, and then look at it as the literal birth of Christ and all these literal things, then we're going to have to look at the offspring as also literal. So again, to go from literal and symbolic and keep moving like that, I would say, I simply don't understand.

Starting point is 00:47:43 I don't understand, Pastor. I just literally showed you the Greek in Revelation 14 is exact, and it cannot be for physical children because it's telling you it's all the saints are the ones who keep the commandments. That would fit my reading better that we look at her as the mother. of the church. It wouldn't fit a reading of her being physically the mother of all these children because the classical reading is that Mary is the woman of Revelation 12 and she's the mother of the church glorified in heaven. Now, I would need an answer if you're telling me that it would cause

Starting point is 00:48:14 trouble for me. It clearly doesn't because those are not physical children. Would you at least concede that those are not physical children that the woman is, that the woman is mentioned as having and as offspring. If one is to assume that that's Mary literally, then one can't deny that those offspring are talking about in a literal manner. But for my way of interpretation, which I don't believe that it's Mary, and I see it as the body of Christ, it does actually fit that too. And again, this is why when one makes an error in their hermeneical conclusion,

Starting point is 00:48:44 it carries error throughout. So you believe that even with, even when I identifies it at the spiritual church? Okay. That's fine. at least you're consistent in holding to that particular position. Are you able to name one extant Greek commentary on Revelation that denies Revelation 12 refers to Mary? Are you able to name one? I don't have that on hand.

Starting point is 00:49:12 I could definitely look at them and let you know, but I don't have that on hand. Are you aware that the earliest commentaries on Revelation 12, the earliest Greek ones, not only identify the woman as Mary, but identify her as bodily assumed in heaven. Are you aware of that as well? No, I've not looked at all those commentaries. Okay. You mentioned Eam and Duffy earlier.

Starting point is 00:49:33 Are you aware that Eam and Duffy is liberal, who also denies aspects of the Gospels, the history of the Gospels? Are you aware that he is not a Mariologist and he most definitely is not an Orthodox Catholic? No, but I also know that there are many people within the Catholic Church who have liberal views and they're still within the actual Catholic church.

Starting point is 00:49:52 But if they don't follow the Catholic teaching, then very clearly they're not a faithful Catholic. You'd admit that. Well, but that would then require interpretation, just like I interpret scripture. No, it wouldn't the catechism lays it out? The catechism says you have to believe the Bible to be inerrant. That's laid out right there directly in the catechism. But they're actually official Catholic members, right? So they have their own justification of how they can explain how they can still be in the church.

Starting point is 00:50:15 Well, they'd be incorrect. But my time is up. Yep. My time's up. Thanks very much. All right. Now we're moving into Sam's cross-examination. Whenever you begin, we'll click the 15-minute timer.

Starting point is 00:50:26 All right. Thank you for that. All right. So, William, where does it say specifically in the scriptures that Mary was bodily assumed in scripture alone? Yeah. So in scripture alone, we don't have the language Mary was bodily assumed. What we have is in Revelation 12, we have a physical imagery of Mary that parallels the

Starting point is 00:50:49 And pastor, feel free to interrupt me if I go too long. Sure. That parallels the imagery of Christ in other parts of the book of Revelation, which lends itself to the bodily. So it doesn't tell you at the end of her life, she was then taken bodily into heaven. But it shows you of Mary being bodily present in heaven, glorified in heaven. When you take that and you combine that with the most ancient interpretations,

Starting point is 00:51:10 they all saw that, well, all the Greek ones at least, saw that as Mary being bodily present in heaven. So I look at Revelation 12 and I see that cumulative, bodily language, and then I'm able to say, okay, even though we don't know the exact details of the end of her earthly life, we know that she's there bodily present in heaven, and I trust the ancient apostolic church in telling us she was taken to heaven body and soul, because the early liturgyes all believe that as well. Okay, so because one of the questions about this actual debate is, is it biblical? So biblical meaning that you can actually find this doctrine in

Starting point is 00:51:45 scripture. Do you understand that the bodily assumption is not actually said in scripture? No, I do not agree with you. I just said Revelation 12 presents Mary bodily present in heaven. You've got her head, you have her feet, you have her hands mentioned, you have a crown in her head, you have imagery that only lines up with one other person in the book of Revelation. St. John is very careful to give you bodily imagery like that of only one other person, that being Christ when it's identifying him as that son of man who now appears in glory in heaven. There's only one other figure that has all those identity markers. So remember, the bodily assumption doesn't detail you every single little detail at the end of Mary's life. It just tells you Mary was taken up in heaven, body and soul by Christ.

Starting point is 00:52:26 So if you have her, you agree she's there in heaven soul-wise. You agree with that. We take it just a little step further and say bodily as well. But that's what I was going to say. It doesn't talk about her body assuming at all. You're talking about an interpretation. Oh, you mean the actual event occurring. Yeah, no, the actual event of her.

Starting point is 00:52:46 Yeah, I'm sorry. Yeah, the actual event of us reading Jesus taking her after her dormition into heaven, that whole event does not get cataloged there in the Bible. Indeed, in sacred tradition, we don't know the exact, every single little detail at the end of Mother Mary's life. What we do know is that at the end of her life, after she had a holy dormition, she was taking body and soul into heaven. So the book of Revelation gives St. John a vision of Mary bodily president. heaven doesn't tell you all those other details. We rely in sacred tradition to see at the end of her life she was taken into heaven. And then it really does fit perfectly because as munificentism Davis points to, as the Pope points out, she's there bodily present in heaven. So how did she get there? The only possible way Mary could have gotten there is by Christ, because there's only one person that can ascend to heaven. God. Only the son of man has the power to ascend and descend. So if Mary's in heaven, she's only there because of Christ. Okay. But again, the evented is not actually recorded in scripture.

Starting point is 00:53:48 So you do mean that is the event itself. The actual event of the assumption of Mary into heaven, that event itself is not actually the event of her dormition and then Christ taking her up into heaven. All of those details, just like the canon of scripture, is not recorded in sacred scripture itself. But Mary's being bodily present to heaven, which is what the heart of the assumption doctrine is. Mary is present there according to Revelation 12.

Starting point is 00:54:13 Okay. Thank you for, no, thank you for your answer. So if you ever need clarification, don't hesitate to ask. No, absolutely, absolutely. So also with this dogma, because it is a dogma, we also know that people are under God's wrath if they don't actually believe this. So again, so at first you admit that, that you believe that people who don't believe this event are actually under God's wrath. Yes, primarily for people within the church that willingly and knowingly reject it. So it's very important to understand the language of the Bible.

Starting point is 00:54:43 The Bible is very, very clear that if one is within the church and they knowingly know that you must believe all divine revelation and you knowingly rejectable, then of course, that particular language applies to those within the church. Now, there are those that may be invincibly ignorant pastor that may not know and may say, well, this is hard for me to understand. Well, very clearly they wouldn't fall under that particular kind of language. But it is a very important doctrine. Let me just say this. It's a non-negotiable. Yeah, and I thank you. It's a binding argument, you would say, correct?

Starting point is 00:55:15 It's a binding. Now, do you believe that only those who are in the Catholic Church can be saved? No, the Catholic Church doesn't teach that. Okay. No, I'm just asking because I wasn't sure. So do you believe that because the actual doctrine, and I know that there was other things that we can look at from beforehand, but the actual doctrine did not become dogma until 1950? So do you believe that anyone prior to 1950 was under God's wrath for not believe?

Starting point is 00:55:41 believing this doctrine? Yeah. So that's a phenomenal question, Pastor. Because if we look in early church history, we encounter a bishop by the name of Bishop Ascaricus, who is cataloging figures before the early in church history, 500 and 600s. And he is noting that along with the bodily resurrection,

Starting point is 00:56:02 you must believe in the bodily assumption of Mary. And if you deny it, you are outside of the church. That's an important point you bring up. Because despite it being made dogma, It was already built into the liturgical life of the church, meaning even before it was elevated to a dogma, you had to believe in it. Our liturgies held it.

Starting point is 00:56:19 Their feast days from the earliest of centuries. It was a non-negotiable even before, but then it was lifted up. It was elevated to the level of a dogma at a particular time in history because of how war ravaged the world was. But it doesn't mean that people didn't have to believe in it before. And I'd take it a little further, Pastor. I would argue that all the apostolic churches have to believe in this,

Starting point is 00:56:39 not just the Catholic Church, We may use particular language in our dogma, but all of the apostolic churches, you can't be a part of any of them and deny this teaching. You've got to believe it to be part of any of the apostolic churches. So any saints that are officially canonized

Starting point is 00:56:55 within, say, the Catholic Church, if they are on record of denying the assumption of Mary, because there were much debate on this and it wasn't clear, those people are under God's wrath? How are they also Catholic saints? I know that I cannot ask questions.

Starting point is 00:57:10 at my cross-examination, but I would highly challenge you to show me any canonized saints that denied the bodily assumption. I would challenge you on that. Okay. I mean, I know I have to double check, but doesn't Augustine deny it? No, sir. You are incorrect. Okay. No, and I don't have, again, a record of that. But I just want to know that, even if there was an actual Roman Catholic saint who denied it, you would say that they are then under God's wrath and it can't, and would you say it's a conflict for them to be No, because dogmas don't, dogmas don't work retroactively.

Starting point is 00:57:42 There would be a great problem if that particular anathemas, forgive me. There would be a big problem in that particular saint. Let's say Augustine, which by the way, I know a lot about Augustine. I got a bust of them right back there. Let's say Augustine heard about the bodily assumption and he denied it and he was not aware of the bodily assumption being built into the liturgy, which would have been odd because he was a bishop. But let's say he was ignorant about it and he went to his death. denying it. Of course, you wouldn't be under any kind of wrath of God. If one is aware that this

Starting point is 00:58:12 is part of the church teaching built into the liturgy and they fully deny it, then we would be in a bit of a, that saint wouldn't be canonized as a saint, but you're unable to find any saints that they look and they see, okay, this is built into the liturgy and they deny it. You simply don't have that. What you're going to find, pastor, and this is a big issue. With all due respect, you're going to find heretics, a deny it. But the heretics are not part of the church. meaning that people that deny these teachings about Mary, they're not part of the apostolic church. They're outside of the fold. And that's why I'd argue it's biblical ancient.

Starting point is 00:58:46 And that's why the early reformers believed it as well. They knew that to deny these Marian teachings meant that you were in the fold with the heretics. And that's why they held to them. So again, when you say the word biblical, so again, we define biblical, it seems different. So when I say biblical, I mean that the actual, for example, the actual event was actually recorded in scripture. That's what would make it biblical. So when you say biblical, how are you saying that this is biblical? It's biblical because if you read, yeah, right, because with all due respect, Pastor, I think you're

Starting point is 00:59:16 misunderstanding the very heart of munificentismus deus. Monificentismus deus is not telling you, you have to understand and know every little event that happened at the end of Mary's life. So with all due respect, I think you're misunderstanding. What we are bound to believe is that Mary was taken body and soul into heaven, and she is there in heaven right now. and Revelation 12 most definitely does show you Mary present in heaven. And if we read the Bible and we know that only the son of man can ascend and descend on his own power,

Starting point is 00:59:44 well, that means like Enoch and Elijah, God had to take Mary into heaven. So the very beating heart of the doctrine, we would argue, according to Revelation 12, it is fulfilled right there. The New Ark is in heaven. We would say that it is there. Maybe, maybe, and I don't know with all the respect, how you interpret something being biblical. But if you need every little jot and tittle of the event in order for it to actually be laid out as biblical, I think we'd have a number of problems with a lot of events, a lot of teachings. Well, from what we see from Scripture, I would say that when you see that something is actually self-ific, something is mandatory to believe, it's clearly shown in scripture.

Starting point is 01:00:22 Whereas here, there's a lot of assumptions that have to be made, a lot of good wordplay. There's a lot of exegesis. Yeah, I don't agree. I see that. I don't agree. And I think the problem with that, Pastor, is that you are then saying that whenever there's anything that we have to believe, and then you say it's salvific, you're going to have it laid out in the Bible. I'm going to push back and tell you that everything in divine revelation has got to be believed. Everything laid out there in divine revelation. Every John Title has got to be believed. A Catholic, for us, the scripture is in errant, and we have to take all of it and believe in all of it. But it's a great. kin to Christ, he descended into hell. He went into Hades after he died. Does it tell us every little jot in detail as to how he descended into Hades? Absolutely not. But we know he descended into Hades.

Starting point is 01:01:12 Just like we know, Mother Mary is bodily present in Revelation 12. The earliest commentary is indicate that. And oddly enough, this is an odd position that I'm in today, pastor. The reformers agree with me and they're on my side today. You're kind of like an annihilent all alone today. Oh, that's okay. I'll stand with the Word of God and be against it. anyone else who says something. And I'd say you stand with your interpretation of it.

Starting point is 01:01:36 No, no, I would say a lot when you look at actually what people who are actually using scripture, for example, actually using scripture, you can't really read scripture and actually come to that conclusion. The only way that one comes to the question is, but how can you say that? If you admitted, you flat out admitted to the audience, the earliest reformed commentaries on Revelation 12 have my reading. So how can you say actually using scripture if the earth i can't ask questions let me just answer it no i don't think you can say that if the earliest reformed commentaries agree with me and the earliest reformed commentaries are using scripture and they are holding the soul of scripture and they don't agree with you so my push back

Starting point is 01:02:17 to you would it tell you pastor you are wrong the earliest reformers believed in this and here's the other conundrum you're in the earliest reformed commentaries agree with mary being the woman of revelation 12 and being bodily present there in heaven so it's a bunch of different dues to where not only you're going to say, well, I'm going to stand with my interpretation of the Word of God, and anyone reading that will get to that conclusion. But apparently for hundreds of years, when Solis Scripura was a rallying cry of the Reformation,

Starting point is 01:02:45 they didn't read the Solis Scripura the way that you do. That, to me, is a big problem. So again, as I've mentioned before, there's reasons why the reformers have made mistakes. They're fallible men. We don't build our doctrine off the Word of God. But again, when you look at the Pharisees, for example, they made the same type of arguments that you're making by saying, look, look at these older, older rabbis and what they said.

Starting point is 01:03:08 So if you look at... I really don't mind what the reformers talk. I don't agree with them and everything. I'm just... This is odd that they're an ally of mine in this particular issue. Now, I don't agree. I don't say simply because this antiquity is true. No, the way that I look at it is, I look at the Bible, and then I look at the earliest interpretations, and then I see do the apostolic churches hold to this?

Starting point is 01:03:28 And the fact that every one of them, all of the apostolic... the church is whole to this is enormous for me. And then I say, okay, go ahead. Go ahead. So in 2 Timothy 3, 16 to 17, Paul lays it out very clear that everything that we need to believe that is considered good works is contained within scripture. One cannot, again, actual. I do not agree with that. I'm sorry, Pastor. You're reading in Second Timothy, with all due respect, is a very bad one. Depp Nusta simply cannot be interpreted that way. It was not interpreted that way in the early church either. In order for your interpretation to work, It would have to say only.

Starting point is 01:04:03 Yeah. Can you give me your interim? Sure. The Word of God. Right. Everything said there for the Word of God in Second Timothy 3 is also said for sacred tradition. It can equip you. It does equip you for every good work.

Starting point is 01:04:15 It isn't very, very valuable. It is great. It has truth in it. But Second Timothy 3 doesn't say only the scripture. It doesn't say that. And Theapnustas for God breathed simply wasn't interpreted that way in the early church. Because there were conciliated decrees that were also viewed as Thetabnus. Newstas as God breathed. So you're reading of 2 Timothy 3 that everything we must believe

Starting point is 01:04:35 must be in the scriptura is not a reading in antiquity. Otherwise, you run into an enormous problem because you can't even get your canon from the scripture itself alone. So you run into all kinds of problems with that pastor. Yeah, when it says that from scripture, you can do every good work and what's being proposed here is that the assumption of Mary is vital and necessary and binding. I would say that that actually conflicts with that. And I would argue and say that you're reading of 2 Timothy 3 is not a good one. It is not found in antiquity. You'd have to show me somebody that interpreted that the way you do. And is the assumption a good work it most definitely is. That's why we can find that good reality in Revelation 12 where Mother Mary as a new arc is bodily

Starting point is 01:05:18 assumed, bodily present there in heaven. And as I said earlier, and you haven't toppled that pastor is that the earliest interpretations, the Greek ones agree with me. And the early reformers agree with me as well, you're in a big bind today. That's time. All right, guys, that was terrific. Thank you very much. I was recently in an airport and this lovely older woman was exiting and she fell on the ground. And I was saddened by that, but to my delight, a bunch of strangers rushed over her to help her. And I thought, okay, there's still hope for humanity, these Good Samaritans doing this good deed. One of the things I love about the parable of the Good Samaritan is that he never asked whether helping would be convenient.

Starting point is 01:05:58 He simply encountered someone in need and responded. Love often interrupts our schedules. It costs us something. It asks us to notice the person everyone else is walking past. Today, thousands of women facing unexpected pregnancies feel frightened and alone. Many honestly believe they have no other option. Pre-born network clinics step into that moment with compassion instead of condemnation. They provide free ultrasounds, practical resources, counseling and ongoing support,

Starting point is 01:06:27 giving mothers the confidence to choose life. And here's the beautiful part. Your gift makes those ultrasounds possible. It's such a simple thing, but seeing their children often changes everything. If you'd like to be the good Samaritan for a mother and her baby today, visit preborn.com slash mat or dial pound 250 and say baby. Thanks for helping defend the dignity of every human life. Running a business means you're kind of always on call,

Starting point is 01:06:53 and the reality is if you miss a call from a potential customer, chances are they're not sitting around waiting for you to call you back. They're already calling the next business on the list. That's why today's episode is brought to you by Quo, the business phone system built so you never miss an opportunity. With Quo, everything lives in one place, which is really convenient. Your calls, texts and voicemails are all together. So whether it's you or someone on your team, anyone can jump into the conversation,

Starting point is 01:07:22 see the full history and respond quickly. And if someone reaches out after hours, Quo's built-in AI agent can answer questions and even book appointments, so you're still capturing leads even when you're not working. It's also really easy to get started. You can set it up in just a few minutes on any device, keep your existing number and add teammates as your business grows. No IT headaches or complicated setup. Money is on the line. Always say hello with Quo. Try Quo for free, plus get 20% off your first six months when you go to Quo.

Starting point is 01:07:54 com slash pints. That's quo.com slash pints. Okay, so we're going to move into a time of audience Q&A. So I've got a bunch of questions here that have been sent over YouTube. But before I get to their questions, I'd like to ask each of you a question first. And so maybe I'll begin by asking William and then asking Sam. William, am I correct in thinking that the first explicit teaching that Mary was assumed into heaven was from St. Gregory of Tours in the late 6th century? In terms of describing or dormition and then her bodily assumption, St. Great Queen of Tourists is very good, but predating him would be St. Epithanas, and he is writing the 300s.

Starting point is 01:08:40 In the 300s. Okay. How can you call the assumption of Mary an ancient teaching when the first time it shows up is in the 300s? Wonderful question. Just the way that we can believe that the canon of Scripture is apostolic, the first thing. time that it ever shows up is even later close to the fifth century. 393 is the first time we ever get the canon, meaning the old and the New Testament lined up today, yet nobody's going to argue that the canon is not apostolic. The reason being, we believe it to be apostolic because we can find it in the Bible, the typology in the Old Testament, and then we can see Mother Mary bodily assumed there in Revelation 12. And then finally, when people begin to ask, what happened at the end of Mary's life? Because early on, Matt, they're dealing with all kinds of heresies.

Starting point is 01:09:26 They're dealing with a heresy of, of Gnosticism. They're dealing with people denying Christ's Almighty God. When people begin saying, where are the relics of Mary? What happened to her at the end of her life? St. Epiphanius is one of the earliest ones that goes searching. He goes to apostolic areas and says, what happened at the end of her life? And originally, Matt, he comes out in Panarian 78, says, I don't know what happened. And then after researching and studying more, Panerian,

Starting point is 01:09:54 79, he comes back and says, at the end, she was taken like Elijah bodily into heaven. Once people begin doing research and studying, they finally arrive at that and they finally say, this is what the apostolic churches are preserving. This is what is being taught in their liturgies. And by the way, earlier, my friend pastor brought up Dr. Shoemaker. Dr. Shoemaker does argue that the assumption of Mary, before it was even talked about by early church fathers, was already being written about in the liturgy and in early documents of early church history.

Starting point is 01:10:28 So you asked me about a church father, Matt, but there are church documents that predate St. Epiphanius that scholars date as early as the second century that taught her assumption in heaven. All right, so just during this Q&A period, I'd like to ask one of you a question. And then I also want to give the other person time to respond. My hope is that the answers can,

Starting point is 01:10:48 I'm not going to time these because it'll get tedious, but be between one and two minutes. So, Pastor Sam, I'd like to give you the opportunity to respond at around the same length of time there if you wish. Yeah. So I would say that, yeah, when you see when Epiphanus actually talked about it and everything, yeah, you don't really see the doctrine actually laid out. And I wouldn't classify that as ancient. So William and I have a very different definition of both ancient and biblical. And I see that as a much later development.

Starting point is 01:11:19 And I wouldn't agree also with the, you know, because the canon, was agreed upon later on doesn't mean that the early fathers actually saw that we didn't actually have a canon of scripture. No, they very much saw that we had a canon of scripture. They actually practiced solo scriptura. We actually have evidence of it all throughout from the very writings. We have the scrolls. We have the manuscripts. Very different, I would say. Yeah. What's difficult about these Q&As, right, is I'll ask one of you a question, and then I'll give the other person a chance to respond, and then I'm sure the other one is hankering to respond. So I just want to say, I'm okay if that has.

Starting point is 01:11:52 happens, but you both have to be okay with it. So let's try this film that. But if one of you's like, no, you can't say that. I'll let the two of you. All right. So here's my question for Sam then. Sam, you called into question, no, rather. You said that belief is one thing, but insisting on it as a dogma is another. So does that mean that you'd be open to Christians privately holding this doctrine and that your real objection is to the church binding it as dogma? Correct. Yeah, if somebody actually believes it, I don't see that as a problem if somebody believes that. But to say, no, this is a dogma and you must believe it, that's when you actually come into conflict what Paul says in Galatians. For example, Timothy was circumcised for the sake of evangelizing to the Jews. That was okay. But once you say, no, your circumstance is mandatory in order to be saved, that's where Paul said to the Judaizers, you're now teaching a different gospel. So that's the issue that I have is making it a dogma where you're saying it's actually mandatory. finding. All right, William, you want to respond to that? Yeah, and I'll make it brief, because pastors be, look, very clear, if the bodily assumption of Mary is part of divine revelation,

Starting point is 01:13:05 then yeah, it is mandatory for all to believe. And I'm glad that pastor is open to it being, you know, possible to be believed. I mean, then we've got a conclusion of this debate that if it is even a possibility for one to believe it, well, then I think that tells you everything there. I would invite pastor to come to apostolic Christianity, to come to the fullness in Catholicism. But when we say that, the bodily assumption must be believed because it's part of divine revelation. But that isn't unique to only the assumption. As a Catholic, anything revealed by God is binding upon me, meaning rejecting any revealed truth is ultimately rejecting the authority of God who reveals.

Starting point is 01:13:44 So the issue is not, well, do I personally like the doctrine? Why are you making it a doctrine? Why do I have to believe it? No, the issue is this has gotten revealed it through divine revelation. And not only for the assumption, anything, the Trinity, the bodily resurrection, even the canon, which is not explicit there in the Bible, dare I say, not even implicit there in the Bible, is mandatory. Anything that is apostolic, anything that is divinely revealed, you must believe in it, I say.

Starting point is 01:14:12 All right. So we've got to, we'll go have a question for William. when do the earliest critiques of this doctrine arise? Do you know? Yeah. We can find early on because of some heretical documents that are circulating the church that are people thought were written by St. Jerome, but really were not from St. Jerome,

Starting point is 01:14:38 where it doesn't deny Mary is assumed in heaven, but it can lend itself to language of Mary being, soul assumed. Well, early on, probably around, maybe around between the six to the eight hundreds, there are people debating about these particular documents because they're pseudonymous, and they're attached to the name of a father. And that causes all kinds of problems, kind of like when other figures like Apollinaris are, their writings are attached to the name of St. Athanasius and people get confused early on. That was the case with pseudo-Gerome, claiming for a sole assumption. Really early on, you don't have people saying,

Starting point is 01:15:15 well, we don't believe Mary is bodily in heaven. People rather are saying, how can such a titan be denying the bodily assumption of Mary? If our churches have it built into the liturgy and we believe it. So you have pockets of writings of bishop saying that you must believe in the assumption just the way you believe in the bodily resurrection and just like you believe in the ascension. These are non-negotiables well before it was even a dogma. But in terms of flat out denying it, flat out denying it, you got to wait until even after the Reformation, even after the time of Luther, I dare say until the 1600s when people really just

Starting point is 01:15:51 begin to flat out deny it in mass. Yeah. All right, Sam. Yeah, there are documents like the book of Mary's repose. And again, nobody sees that an actual binding text, but there's been a lot of debate. And as we saw with Epiphanes, he saw, he mentions all these different ideas that people had. So clearly, you can even see when Epiphanes in his early writings, he really mentions that there are all these different views when it comes to Mary. There wasn't a consensus. And again, he came to his own conclusion at the end, but that also makes it very clear that there was not actual agreement and it's not as universal as it's presented to be. All right. And now, a question for you, Sam, this comes from the disciple 21. He says, question to the Protestant. The consensus is that the writings of the New

Starting point is 01:16:37 Testament ended before the assumption, which means the writers would not have written about it. does this mean that the Bible is the only source of information that we can receive from the apostolic age, or can we also trust the witnesses of the early Christians and their liturgys, such as the claim of Mary's assumption? So when we have to actually see what beliefs do we actually need to believe in an order to be saved? Again, look at Christ when he was dialoguing with the Pharisees. The Pharisees had many oral traditions that they had, and these traditions they had, they called them the tradition of the elders. they held them as binding and they held them to the same level as God's word. And when they were questioned about it, they would say, oh, look, these are oral traditions

Starting point is 01:17:19 that were from Moses. So these actually came from God. Jesus rebuked them. He said no. And he consistently looked to what was written. So if the event of Mary's assumption was necessary for salvation, if it was a binding doctrine, then it would have been found within scripture. The very fact that it's not found there.

Starting point is 01:17:37 It's very clear that that event is not actually recorded means that we don't have to believe and that's why we should base our beliefs with what's in scripture because that's the hermeneutic that Jesus used. William? Yeah, I would definitely answer that question by noting that God's word. In fact, when you read about God's word all throughout the Bible, it is never confined to the written word alone. Simply look at Second Thessalonians too. Nobody practiced that. In order for pastor's theology to shine today, you'd have to have anyone in the early church teaching. that solar scriptura, but they don't. But funny enough, even if I went with solar scriptura,

Starting point is 01:18:15 I've presented Mary bodily present in heaven. And according to the earliest people that held to Solar Scriptura, people that are titans for the reformers, they agree with me and not with pastor. So according to people that don't hold a sacred tradition, and those people who wrote the earliest reformed commentaries in Revelation 12, they think pastor's wrong and that I'm right, according to the standard that pastor holds. I'll tell you the good pattern to hold to. Hold a the pattern of the apostolic churches. They all believe in this. And from the beginning they have, here's the conundrum pastorism. That very church that gave you the Bible, caught the bodily assumption, that same church. And if you're telling me that that church is wrong or was heretical,

Starting point is 01:18:54 well, you can't even trust her canon. You run into all kinds of issues. And yes, pastors right, Jesus did rebuke people for holding the man-made traditions. And I dare say, denying the bodily assumption is a man-made tradition in the early reformers who were trying to cleanse the church of man-made traditions and their rallying cry, their rallying cry was Soliscriptura, Solafide, Solis Sola Gratia. Solar Scripura was right there, the beating heart of it, and they still believed in this. Well, I dare say they would agree that the man-made tradition is to deny this truth about our Immaculate Mother Mary.

Starting point is 01:19:29 All right. Question for you, William. Why did it take so long for it to become a dogma? Yeah. That is a great question. Now, for a long time, the church, bishops within the church and priests, and even other apostolic churches, were in agreement that this is a non-negotiable, that all the apostolic churches believe in it, meaning you can't be part of Oriental Orthodoxy and deny it, meaning you can't be part of Eastern Orthodoxy and deny it, just like you can't be Catholic and deny it. The fact of the matter is, the church recognized this was already built into the liturgy. Every year in August 15th, were celebrating the dormition and the bodily assumption of Mary. In fact, Luther did so as well to his dying day, celebrated it in the same day.

Starting point is 01:20:17 So the church already has it on the calendar day is built into the liturgy. The church really didn't see the necessity of making it a dogma. Now, when people talk about dogmas, Matt, usually something is elevated to the status of a dogma when people begin to deny something and there begins to be controversy. Well, the church never needed to define it early on because there's nobody denying it. So there's no need to make it a dogma because you don't have all these people standing up and saying, wait a minute, we don't believe in this. No, it's unanimous. It's in the liturgy of all the apostolic churches. Why did the Pope then in munificentism, deus deus, it was elevated to the level of a dogma?

Starting point is 01:20:53 Because we're living in a time when the world was wracked by the war. And depression was at an all-time high to call people to remember that one day we will be bodily glorified as well. the way that our immaculate mother was bodily glorified ahead of time to remind people that that that beauty of the bodily resurrection that really is a truth laid out in scripture and is awaiting us one day that is why it was eventually elevated to the level of a dogma all right and sam same question to you i mean what's your response to when someone says why don't it take so long to become a dogma yeah and i think that shows the problem with it because if this was truly something that should have been a dogma to not state this for that long is actually an act that lacks kindness it to not warn people. We see from scripture, there's constant warnings. And we also have to just, again,

Starting point is 01:21:40 look at history. EpiFinnis, again, we talked about him a lot. He made it very clear that there were many different views on what happened with Mary. The loving thing would have been to make it very clear, hey, guys, as you're having this discussion, if you don't believe this, you're under God's wrath. And the church didn't say anything. I mean, if we just look at the historical witness and you see that there wasn't a consensus, then if this truly was a dogma and it was salvific, then they would have said something. I think it's very clear why that didn't happen and why it took so long for them to actually say that this was a dogma. All right. I've got a question here from Duterocomical who asks for Sam. If this is a modern invention, or I guess we could say at least not ancient, why do the

Starting point is 01:22:21 Orthodox believe in the Dormition? So the Orthodox also hold to many other beliefs that were accretions. So there were many beliefs that are old. that people hold to, but just because it's old doesn't mean that it's biblical, doesn't mean it's as ancient as it claims to be. So yeah, the Orthodox do hold to it, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they hold to it because it comes from the times of Scripture, that it comes from the apostles. They just also adopted it just like a lot of other accretions that they have within their tradition. That I would say you find it within Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism. They have certain beliefs that they all share in common, but just because

Starting point is 01:23:00 you believe in something doesn't actually mean that it's as old as it claims to be. Okay. Your response, William? Yeah. I think that is really important because as I have asked Eastern Orthodox scholars and priests, is it a non-negotiable? You have to believe this. The answer is yes. As I've asked Oriental Orthodox, do you have to believe this to be part of the ancient apostolic faith? Yeah. That proves to you it is not a late medieval invention. is every apostolic church which can trace themselves to an apostle. Like I love pastor, we've had a great dialogue today. I can consider him a friend and hope to dialogue with him many more times in the future,

Starting point is 01:23:43 even call him a brother. But I have to be very honest with him. He cannot trace his church to that of an apostle. The apostolic churches can trace their lineage to an apostle with Catholicism having the fullness of the truth. And every one of these ancient churches have preserved belief in Mother Mary's glory. bodily assumption, all of them. That level of apostolic, forgive me, that level of universal apostolic witness is powerful. That shows you it is of antiquity.

Starting point is 01:24:11 But I'll take it even further. And I'll make it brief. The apostolic churches aren't the only ones. The reformers did it as well. And you have to remember the reformers didn't come along and say, okay, well, I want to hold on to a few teachings, even though they're anti-biblical. No, the reformers came along with a rallying cry of Bible alone. And it wasn't in the Bible alone.

Starting point is 01:24:32 It would be rejected as anti-biblical. It is a telling marker that they held to the bodily assumption of Mary. That shows you all of those witnesses that this really is of antiquity. Okay. And then we have a question for you, William. This comes from Lighterman. He says, how far could a Catholic go in attempting to explain why there is scant early evidence for this doctrine? In other words, the explanation sometimes given that this was revealed by the Holy Spirit over time.

Starting point is 01:25:02 How far is too far with that explanation such that it would constitute new revelation? Yeah. So one could make the argument that this would violate being part of divine revelation if you can only find this when it was defined as a dogma. But the fact that you have explicit written evidence. very early on, remember, I may have brought up St. Epiphanius, but I mentioned St. Epiphanius as the earliest explicit, I said, father that taught the assumption. St. Ephraim is before him. And Ephraim taught the bodily assumption. He just doesn't lay it out the way St. Epiphanius does. I think Epiphanius is even clearer. So you could argue that, well, you know what, this isn't part of the divine deposit. If you could

Starting point is 01:25:52 look and say it only appears when it was made a dogma, but it appears well before that. the writings that can be dated to the 200s. And some scholars argue even the late 100s that are teaching this that originate then. The fact of the matter is, if we have this in the liturgy, in the early preaching, in ancient festivals and an oral tradition, as the Franciscans have aptly demonstrated, then it really is ancient. We could make the argument that, well, it's too late in history if it only would have popped up very late at maybe after the medieval era or maybe even shortly before, was made a dogma. But the fact of the matter is this is present in antiquity. You don't have people rising up and challenging it. They're accepting it, especially the apostolic churches, as a given, because they know this was an event that really did occur. Sam, your response to that?

Starting point is 01:26:44 Yeah, well, I'll just say that I think it's a major problem when there's something that there's silence in in church history. And then we say all of a sudden, hey, this is something that we have to make binding on other people. Again, that's exactly what the feeling. Pharisees did. That's what Jesus rebuked him for. It wasn't that they just took God's word too seriously. No, they had certain traditions that they believed that they had no biblical evidence for. And that's why Christ constantly told them, it is written, it is written. And that's why also the claim that, oh, well, Soliscriptura, you guys gave, like you guys gave us the scripture. Well, who gave the Old Testament? Describes and the Pharisees put it together. That doesn't make them a binding authority. No, the word of God is clear enough on its own and it's unidentifiable. That's why so many early fathers could identify the books of the Bible. And they used them authoritative. So we are cautioned to always stick to what scripture says as opposed to a lot of these claims that lack a lot of evidence in history and we have to fill in the gaps in order to make the doctrines make sense. All right. And then we have two more questions. Y'all are doing great.

Starting point is 01:27:43 So a question for Sam is which church fathers taught against the assumption of Mary? I don't know that they're off the top of my head which church fathers. But again, if they weren't actually making it a dogma, there would be no. no reason for them to go ahead and say, okay, we have to teach against it. Because just like I said, if somebody believes it, that doesn't change somebody's relationship with the Lord, whether one believes it or not, if you're looking at it from my perspective or anyone who I would say is a genuine born-again believer. The problem happens when someone says, no, you have to believe this or you can't be saved, but that didn't happen until 1950. So that's why you don't see a lot of

Starting point is 01:28:19 pushback. Would you permit me a follow-up? Suppose the evidence in the patristics was far stronger than it is. Suppose every church father interpreted Revelation 12 unanimously. Would you then accept the reality of the assumption of Mary or still no because you don't see it in Scripture? I don't see it in Scripture, but again, if we looked at it and from very early on we saw that there was evidence in this from the earliest of Church Fathers, that they were all talking about it.

Starting point is 01:28:53 Again, because it's not seen in Scripture, but again, if somebody believes it, that doesn't bother me at all. You know, I could even say, well, because of what I see in church history, I come to this conclusion, but I'm not going to use it as a doctrine that I would say is salvific. That's the problem that I have is when someone pronounces it salvific. Okay. Thank you. William.

Starting point is 01:29:12 Yeah. Now, there's the reason why he couldn't bring up any early fathers. They don't deny it. And with all due respect to pastor, I don't agree. I find it to be absurd to say that, well, they wouldn't push him. back because it simply isn't dogma or it wasn't being, we're not being told that it is dogmatized and you have to believe it. There are all kinds of things that were heretical that the church pushed back against, all kinds of things, meaning the early church would have been aware of this,

Starting point is 01:29:44 and they were, how could they not have been? If somebody said Ehrm taught it, you have to remember Saint Ephraim was a titan, not only in the Syriac world, but in the Latin world as well. translated by Rufanus into the Latin world. And in the Greek, he becomes Ephraim Gracos into the Greek language and other writings. And then later a pseudonymous author by the name of a different Ephraicus, because he's that influential. The fact of the matter is, these fathers that believed it and taught are very influential. You got to be kidding me.

Starting point is 01:30:16 St. Epiphanius, he's a titan. Later on, St. John Damascene wrote a whole work inspired by him called on Heres. He's expanding everything Epiphanius did. meaning these figures are titans. Why doesn't anybody come up and stand up and say, well, hey, they got it wrong. It isn't because, well, it wasn't a dogma. It was because it was true. That's why.

Starting point is 01:30:36 Because they're not only telling you in the early church that they're believing in it, but they're telling you that if you don't believe in it, you're not part of the church. Simply look at the writing of Bishop of Scaricus. So they pushed back against heresies. And if it wasn't true, they would have pushed back against this. The fact of the matter is, it's in our liturgies. The early fathers taught it it is of antiquity because they knew that it was. true. Okay. All right. So here's my final question for each of you before we move into closing

Starting point is 01:31:02 statements. I'd like to ask you, we'll begin with William. What's the best point your opponent made and why are you not convinced? I don't want you to say why you're not convinced ultimately about every single point he made, just that one point and if you could try to be succinct. Okay. I want to, I respect a pastor very well. I respect him a lot. I think the best that pastor would have made would have been that we don't have the whole event cataloged in the Bible alone. The reason I am not persuaded by that is because there's a lot of things that we know have occurred in the Bible and do occur, and we don't have every little detail step by step. So ultimately, I'm not convinced because if Mary is bodily present in heaven as I presented,

Starting point is 01:31:51 and that was never refuted, well, then she had to have gotten her a certain way. Christologically, we know she can't ascend in her own. Only the son of man can ascend. So, she was bodily assumed. So ultimately, I'm not convinced by it because that particular point. And the other point is, even if I were to hold his solar scriptura, I just simply think pastor's view of Bible alone is a little bit different than the earliest beliefs that were held to on the issue of Bible alone.

Starting point is 01:32:17 So I respect him greatly. I love the way he laid it out. I've loved dialoguing with him. But I'm simply just not sold on his arguments. All right, Sam. Best point William made and why are you not convinced? Yeah, definitely. I think William's point about Revelation 12 was the strongest one because it's actually, at least from scripture.

Starting point is 01:32:33 And when you look at Revelation, Revelation is that one text because it's symbolic, there's so many different ways that you can interpret text. And again, a lot of people who are trying to be faithful are going to look at it at different ways and come to different conclusions. The reason, though, I'm not convinced is because even if it's granted that Mary is the woman in Revelation 12, as I mentioned before, it would then conflict with two other Catholic dogmas. And the big part of this is the actual event itself. The assumption of Mary is not actually found within Revelation 12 or anywhere else in Scripture. But out of the points that were mentioned, I think that was the best one. And again, William is very great at laying out his argument.

Starting point is 01:33:11 I think he did a very good job of presenting the Roman Catholic point. And it's an honor to have the discussion together. One of the biggest lies, I would say, that men believe, is that holiness is meant to be a solo project. But when you look at the desert fathers, the early church fathers, just read the lives of the saints. And what you find is they didn't do this in isolation. They had spiritual fathers and mothers, brothers to fight alongside with. And that's one of the reasons I really appreciate relay. Check it out. It understands that freedom isn't about white knuckling your way through temptation. It's about inviting other people into the fight and refusing to do it alone.

Starting point is 01:33:55 Freedom is possible. I know that firsthand, but it starts with the hardest thing a man can do. And we're asking for help. Men don't want to do that, but men need to do that. And that's what relays for real lasting freedom from pornography. Not shame, but a road out. Use my code, pints, for your seven-day free trial. Join relay today.

Starting point is 01:34:19 So I am a massive fan of coffee. I drink way more than I should and I don't care. And one of the coffees I keep coming back to is seven weeks coffee because it is a coffee company on a mission. Seven weeks coffee exists to help fund the pro life movement. They donate 10% of every sale to pregnancy resource centers and pro life organizations around the country. Even their name reminds you why they exist. At seven weeks, a baby is roughly the size of a coffee bean and it's the point where a heartbeat is. clearly visible on an ultrasound. Since they started, they've contributed over $1.5 million towards protecting life. I really think you should check them out. They're excellent coffee, and that's important. It's not like they're just good, it's not like their bad coffee, but they've got a great mission so you should buy them. It's actually a great mission and it's great coffee. Visit 7weekscoffee.com slash pints. Subscribe to save 15% for life. Get a free gift and use code pints for another 10% off your first order. That's 25% total savings, plus your free gift. So a lot of people, and by a lot of people, I mean me, but maybe you, you let me know in the

Starting point is 01:35:24 comment section, are intimidated by the Bible. It's an intimidating book. It's a collection of books. I think this is one of the reasons we shy away from it. We don't like failing it stuff we think we should be good at. And that's exactly why I am pumped to promote the St. Paul Center. Scott Hahn, John Bergsmer and other trusted Catholic scholars are going to walk you through scripture in a way that is deeply theological, deeply Catholic and deeply practical. You've seen Dr. Scott Hahn on my show. You've seen Dr. Bergsmer on my show. These men are not just brilliant.

Starting point is 01:36:00 They're also excellent communicators and they also love Jesus Christ. I know them personally and I fully attest to that. No Christ, share Christ. I encourage you to start your 30-day free trial today. at St. Paulsenter.com slash pints or become an annual member, and they'll send you a free copy of the very popular, complete Ignatius Catholic Study Bible. Check them out today.

Starting point is 01:36:24 All right. Well, before we move into closing statements, William and Sam, I want to give you an opportunity to let people know where they can find your work, maybe a book, or something you'd like to promote, William. Yeah, I would like to promote the book that I authored on Maryology, the definitive guide who solving biblical questions about Mary, Mary among the evangelists.

Starting point is 01:36:44 And currently working on publishing multiple more Mary books, people can find everything that I do on my channel, Patristic Pillars. And if they want to find out the work that I'm doing, www.paticpillars.com as well. And they can find out everything that I'm doing there. I do a lot of work heavily on the early church fathers. But I don't just talk about Mariology.

Starting point is 01:37:06 I go very heavy into Christology as well. hope people can check it out and hopefully they can be edified. And hopefully my other thing is, hopefully they can move closer to Christ because that is what Mary would have wanted. All right, Sam, where can people reach you and anything you'd like to promote? And by the way, we'll make sure there are links to all of your things below. So people can easily find them. Oh, absolutely. So Expositing to Word Ministries, if you search for that or you search my name, you'll find my different sermons, the different work I've done. I actually do a lot of work reaching the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox communities. I have a book, Eastern Orthodoxy through

Starting point is 01:37:39 lens of Sola Scriptera. It's coming out, but you can pre-order it now from Free Grace Press. And I have a 10-part teaching series on American Gospel TV that's coming out. That's also on Eastern Orthodoxy. So again, if you want to see any of the debates or anything that I've worked on, you can see that throughout social media. And I'm also a missionary through village missions. So if anyone sees the work and they want to support it, they can support us through village missions. We're out here in Western New York and serving in a rural area here. So blessed to serve our Lord. All right. Thank you very much. We're now going to move into the time of closing statements, William, since you're taking the affirmative, you will go first,

Starting point is 01:38:13 and whenever you begin, I will click the timer for seven minutes. Fantastic, I'll begin now. Thank you very much for that, Pastor, and Matt, for being a phenomenal moderator, as usual. I think that we saw something very clear in today's debate, that the bodily assumption of Mother Mary is biblical and ancient. We went to Revelation 12, and we never had a single refutation of the bodily language in Revelation 12. We noted how Mother Mary appears there, and the only other individual that appears in the book of Revelation, which with such descriptors, is our Lord. With all those descriptors that we laid out, Mother Mary indeed is bodily present there. We also brought up how the earliest Greek commentaries in Revelation identify the woman as Mary,

Starting point is 01:39:01 bodily present in heaven. You can find Eukominius, and you can read that early commentary there. And he's also looking at early ones and relying on them. And he sees Mary as that woman. But that wasn't the only thing. Because an odd thing about today's debate is that the reformers were on my side as well. The earliest reformed commentaries agree with me. The earliest reformers believed in the bodily assumption as well. That is an odd thing that you've got to the Bible, you have antiquity,

Starting point is 01:39:32 and you have the early reformers all in my side. then why does pastor deny it? I have great respect for pastor, great respect from what he's doing, but ultimately there is your conundrum with Protestantism. They have moved so far away from the apostolic faith

Starting point is 01:39:47 that there are teachings that have been shed and abandoned over time, including virtually all of the Marian doctrines. Maybe they'll hold to Mary as Mother of God, but even there is some of them deny that. Perpetrivedity of Mary taught in the reformers, bodily assumption taught in the reformers,

Starting point is 01:40:04 Immaculate Conception taught him the reformers, yet deny today. I've got to remind you the argument that, well, these were priests, right. But the Reformation had the rallying cry of Solus Scriptura, and they held to the bodily assumption, meaning as good Bereans, they looked at the Bible, and they came to another conclusion and pastored it. Ultimately, I want to come to the conclusion of antiquity, and antiquity is on my side today. earlier we heard the argument that well the scribes and the Pharisees also gave us the Old Testament canon. I hope nobody repeats that argument. They most definitely did not.

Starting point is 01:40:41 Now, if you believe that you got your canon from the scribes and the Pharisees, okay, but I believe that the canon of Scripture, even the Old Testament was given to us by our Lord, not by any scribe or Pharisee. And if you're going to argue that the canon was given to you by the scribes and the Pharisees, you have a big problem as there's no evidence of an early closed Judeaic canon. But that is a topic for another debate that I would challenge. pastor to prove. The other issue that we pointed over and over is he couldn't give us any father that denied it. The title of the debate was biblical and ancient. We presented Mary to you bodily in heaven and what he said was, well, it conflicted with Mary and dogmas. So we went to the Greek word

Starting point is 01:41:16 Basinizo and we asked for evidence, is that ever used for a real literal physical birthing pain? He had no answer. So then how would it conflict with the immaculate conception? It wouldn't. It wouldn't. I presented to him that that Greek word Basanizo is never used for literal birthing pain. Burthing pains. So what are the birthing pains in Revelation 12? It's the pain that Mother Mary suffered at the foot of the cross. St. John uses that exact example in his gospel, telling him when our Lord compares the passion to birthing pain. Right.

Starting point is 01:41:49 Burthing pain is not always used in a literal fashion. That was the point I was trying to get at. Pastor conceded that point. So that argument didn't work. The other argument pastor ran into, which was a big problem, was he claimed that if we hold to this, Mary being the woman of Revelation 12, we run into the problem of the perpetual virginity. So we then asked, Pastor, how can that be if Mary is not presented as the physical mother of these children, but the mother of the church? And we compare that to the exact Greek used in Revelation 14, and there was no good answer there. Mary most definitely is the mother of the church, spiritual mother of the church.

Starting point is 01:42:27 And Revelation 12 shows you that. The Greek lines up perfectly with Revelation 14. But there's another thing that Pastor, I don't think we got a good answer on. When I asked Pastor in history, who gave birth to the child that will rule the nations for the rod of iron? He told me Mary. Well, Revelation 12 says that woman gave birth to the child that will rule the nations from the rod of iron. And I asked him, is that Mary? He said no. So in history, Mary gave birth to the one that will rule the nations with a rod of iron.

Starting point is 01:42:59 He said, yeah. And the woman of Revelation 12 gives birth to the one that will rule the nations with a rod of iron. But that can't be Mary. According to pastor, he agreed. That shows you the problem you're in in the world of Solar Scriptura. You hold to your man-made teachings that reject the apostolic faith and you run into all kinds of logical problems. You run into all kinds of them. But the reality is we have antiquity. We have ancient writings. He brought up the book of Mary's repose and what have you.

Starting point is 01:43:26 These are ancient documents, including Latin renditions that teach the bodily assumption of marrying. Scholars like Coppice, like Daylead, Coutous, and even Shoemaker, date the belief to the 100s. These are Dormition scholars. We didn't get a single scholar today from Pastor. We got a liberal Eamunduffie who denies the historicity of the Gospels. We didn't get a scholar.

Starting point is 01:43:48 Scholars don't agree with Pastor. they don't agree. But I'll tell you who agreed with William today. The early church fathers agreed with me that Mother Mary was bodily assumed in heaven. The earliest commentaries in Revelation indicate that. The earliest commentaries saw Mary as that woman bodily assumed in heaven. But it doesn't end there because it's in the early liturgies

Starting point is 01:44:10 and it's also in the early reformers. What do you do when you have it in all of these early figures? You come to one particular conclusion. that to deny this is to deny the apostolic faith. But indeed, he could not fulfill the thesis laid out. We showed how the woman is bodily present in heaven. There is no rebuttal. And we showed how the earliest evidence interprets it that way.

Starting point is 01:44:36 And the earliest the fathers did believe Mary was bodily assumed in heaven. And even the earliest reformers, who unearthed it passed her have for his position? We didn't hear anyone. We didn't hear anyone today. And if that is the case, which it is, when you hear this debate over, and if you are an evangelical, you have to ask yourself, why do the earliest reformers who thought they were being good Bereans and went only to the Bible, why did they believe that believing in the bodily assumption was a worthy belief? And I mean Luther, I mean Zvingly, and that can go on and on. Even Wycliffe and Ian Huss, who are considered the two foremost proto-reformers believed in it because it is biblical and because it is ancient. That is why he believed in it. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you very much. Sam, you have seven minutes. Whenever you begin, I'll click the timer. All right. Thank you. Is the bodily assumption of Mary biblical and ancient? That is the question

Starting point is 01:45:34 William and I did our best to answer today. When looking at all the evidence, it becomes clear that the bodily assumption of Mary is not biblical, and it is not as ancient as the Roman Catholic Church want you to believe. In paragraph 38 of the most bountiful God, the claim is made that the dogma of the bodily assumption of Mary is somehow based on scripture. It says, all these proofs and considerations of the Holy Fathers and the theologians are based upon the sacred writings as their ultimate foundation. However, this is a bold claim with no proof whatsoever. Renowned apologist Gavin Ortland does a great job summarizing the scholarship on the historicity of the doctrine of the bodily assumption of Mary, and says, why should anyone accept Mary's assumption as apostolic when

Starting point is 01:46:28 number one is completely absent in the church for several centuries, even when one expected it to come up, for example, an epiphanus's search in lists of those bodily assumed, etc. Number two, seems to originate in heterodox contexts, like the book of Mary's repose. Number three, is recognized as tardy, and it does finally arise, and when it does finally arise, and four comes into view simultaneously with seemingly countless alternative accounts of Mary's end. The bodily assumption of Mary gives every impression of being a post-apostolic accretion that only gradually wormed its way into piety and imagination of the church. Furthermore, the idea that the bodily assumption was universally accepted by the church when it did arise is simply false.

Starting point is 01:47:24 Over a millennia after Mary lived, it was still not settled matter in the church. Portland is not the only scholar to come to this conclusion. Historian Dr. Stephen J. Shoemaker, who I mentioned before, said, There is no evidence of any tradition concerning Mary's dormition and assumption from before the 5th century. The only exception to this is Epiphanus, unsuccessful attempts to uncover a tradition at the end of Mary's life towards the end of the 4th century. And his failure confirms the otherwise deafening silence. The 5th century itself also has very little to offer. until the very end, when the first fragments of a dormition narrative appears, as well as limited

Starting point is 01:48:11 indications from a few independent sources that can form a sudden interest at this time in the end of Mary's life. The fact that the Roman Catholic Church makes this bold assumption of Mary makes this a selfific doctrine is wild considering the evidence from Scripture, church history and modern scholarship that all reveal that this doctrine is an innovation from the minds of fallible men. The best and most compelling arguments can't show that the bodily assumption of Mary is biblical or very ancient. Yet, to make this man-made doctrine into a dogma is to fall under the same sin as the Pharisees and scribes who elevated the doctrines of man over God's commands. So let's look at what Jesus has to say about that kind of unharmes.

Starting point is 01:49:01 unhealthy idolization of man-made doctrines and man-centered doctrines. Let's take a look at Mark 7, verse 1 through 13, which says, Now when the Pharisees gathered to him with some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem, they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands properly, holding to the tradition of elders. And when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash.

Starting point is 01:49:31 wash, and there are many other traditions that they observe, such as washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches. And the Pharisees, and the scribes asked him, why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands? And he said to them, well did Isaiah prophesy of you, hypocrites, as it is written, this people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrine the commandments of men. You leave the commandment of God and hold to your tradition of men, and he said to them, you have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition. For Moses said, honor your father and your mother, and whoever reviles father or mother must surely die. But you say, if a man tells his father or mother, whatever you would have gained from me is Corban, that is given to God. Then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down, and many such things you do. So in order to accept the Roman Catholic Church's claim that the bodily assumption of Mary is a mandatory dogma is to

Starting point is 01:50:40 accept a false gospel. In order to accept this claim, one must hold to Sola Ecclesia, the church alone. The Roman Catholic Church, based on its claim, practices this one Sola, even if it would not put it that way itself. This can be concluded if one simply looks at their claim that their magisterium is infallible. So based on this belief, one is saved by the church alone, through the church alone, in the church alone, according to the church alone, all for the glory of the church alone. Yet we as Protestants who see scripture as the only true, infallible, and inherent standard and authority stand by the five solas. Based on the word of God, one is saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, according to Scripture alone, all for the glory of God alone.

Starting point is 01:51:28 As Matthew 1514 says, let them alone. They are blind guides. And if the blindly, the blind, both will fall into a pit. Man-made decrees by man-centered institutions cannot and will not save anyone. Our faith must be built on the solid rock of the Word of God. And this is the main thing that we need to focus on here, is seeing how Jesus confronted people. When they said, hey, look, we have our traditions.

Starting point is 01:51:57 Look at our rabbis and look how old they are. And they kept promoting them and promoting them and said, look at them, look at them. But the people saw that when Jesus taught, he was different than the scribes. Because he taught based on the authority of scripture. That's how we're supposed to build our doctrines. That's how we're supposed to build our theology. And that's why the doctrine of Soliscriptura did not come from the Reformation, but came from God's word. All right, William and Samuel, time to wrap up. You guys have been great. Thank you so much for participating in the debate and for doing so so charitably. And a big thanks to everybody who watched. God bless you.

Starting point is 01:52:33 God bless you. And that's that, guys. We're out. God bless you. Thank you for putting in all the effort to study and to show up and to trust that you get a fair shake. I really appreciate it. What if a few minutes with God could change the direction of your entire day with praise. You can begin each morning with powerful daily prayers, inspiring Bible stories, and messages created to strengthen your faith. Whether you need peace, encouragement, or a fresh start, pray.com helps you make prayer part of your everyday life. Download the pray.com app today.

Pints With Aquinas - Is the Assumption of Mary Biblical and Ancient? (William Albrecht vs Pastor Samuel Farag) | Ep. 591

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.