Truth Magazine

By Steve Kearney

Someone once said, the story of the Assumption was apocryphal and did not take place, but that just the same it was true. Such wishful thinking is the woof and weave of Mariolatry.

The Assumption of Mary into heaven is the most revolutionary of Marian doctrines; distinct as it is from Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it has its origins in the apocryphal writings, owes it development to theological forgeries and its doctrinal status to popular demand.

For the first time ever, a dogma was defined without reference to Scripture or Tradition. For the first time also the people decided for the hierarchy and not vice versa. The Assumption of Mary into heaven has created a precedent in the formulation of Catholic doctrine which will make it possible to dogmatize any belief on the grounds of majority agreement.

How right Paul was when he prophesied, “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths” (2 Tim. 4:3-4).

The Assumption In Scripture

“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). For the Christian, Holy Writ is the voice of God. “But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (2 Pet. 2:20-21). The revelations of these holy men are preserved for us in the Bible. In this book we have “everything pertaining to life and godliness.” It is “the faith once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). At the end of the day there is only one sure way of knowing a doctrine is from God and that is to have a book, chapter and verse to confirm it!

If Mary was assumed into heaven one would naturally expect the Scriptures to have at least one reference to this momentous occasion, but alas, nothing! It is not that the Bible overlooks such events; on the contrary, the Holy Spirit makes numerous references to miraculous translation. In 2 Kings 2:11 Elijah’s ascension to heaven on a fiery chariot, is documented. Genesis 5:24 tell us Enoch was taken by God. Acts 1:9 records, “And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight.” So, the Bible is not bereft of documentary evidence for such events. It is however, as silent as the proverbial grave on the ascension of Mary into heaven. Obviously the Assumption is not a part of “the faith once for all delivered to the saints.”

This is confirmed even by Catholic sources Michael O’Carroll, C. S. Sp. (p. 60) in his Theological Encyclopedia of the Blessed Virgin Mary, admits that the Pope’s researchers on the Apostles as witnesses of the death and assumption of Mary may suggest that the belief was of apostolic origin. In the immense scholarly research which preceded the promulgation of the dogma, attempts to trace a link were not successful; this approach was abandoned.” Conway also makes the same damaging admission on page 361 of Question Box. “It (The Assumption) cannot be proved from the Bible or from contemporary historical witnesses. Some may think it strange that the Fathers of the first five centuries do not mention it.”

Let not brazen-faced declarations distract you from the fact that the Catholic Church has no authority from Christ or the apostles for the doctrine of the Assumption. The teaching is unscriptural!

The Assumption In Tradition

Catholics believe that Tradition is of equal importance to the Bible, and not finding a teaching in the Bible is not an insurmountable obstacle to their faith. They simply circumvent the Bible and appeal to the Fathers as the source of their Traditions. The doctrine of the Assumption is the exception. They cannot call on the support of the early Fathers, because none of them mention the assumption of Mary.

The facts are as follows: Clement is mute about the Assumption, so is Ignatius, Polycarp, Barnabas, Papias and Justin Martyr. From 70 A.D. to 403 A.D. there is not one word about what happened to Mary after her death. The silence is broken by Epiphanius (315-403 A.D.) but he breaks the silence only to inform us that the Scripture is silent about how Mary passed from this world. He writes, “Either the holy Virgin died and was buried; then her falling asleep was with honor, her death chaste, her crown that of virginity. Or she was killed, as it is written; ‘And your own soul a sword shall pierce’; then her glory is among the martyrs and her holy body amid blessings, she through whom the light rose over the world. Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and he can do whatever he desires; for her end no one knows” (Theotokos, p. 117).

No one knew until the apocryphal writings came on the scene. These works of religious fiction are the source of the Assumption story. “The belief in the corporal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise ‘De Obitu S. Dominae,’ bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, p. 6).

Catholic writers deftly shroud the illegitimate birth of the Assumption by referring to the works of Germanus (635-733 A.D.) who was Patriarch of Constantinople, Andrew of Crete (660 A.D.) and John Damascene who was a monk of some renown in Jerusalem (675 A.D.). In this way the Assumption of Mary is given a semblance of Traditional antiquity, e.g. “Toward the middle of the eight century St. John Damascene, in three magnificent homilies on Mary’s Domition, summed up the traditional faith and teaching of the Eastern and Western Church concerning her glorious Assumption and mediation of graces in heaven” (A Catholic Catechism for Adults, pp. 244-245). What the Catechism fails to tell the reader is that John Damascene based his homilies on the apocryphal writings of the fourth and fifth centuries!

The claim that Mary was assumed into heaven is untenable by Scripture or tradition.

The Assumption In Apocrypha

The roots of the Assumption story can be traced back to the writings of the apocrypha. M.R. James in The Apocryphal New Testament explains what an apocryphal book is, “Originally – one too sacred and secret to be in every one’s hands: it must be reserved for the initiate, the inner circle of believers. But, in order to enlist respect, such books were almost always issued under venerable names which they had no true right to bear. We hear of apocryphal books of Adam, Moses, and so forth. The pretense was that these had lately been brought to light, after ages of concealment by pious disciples. I do not intend to write a history of the gradual degradation of the world: I need only say that the falsity of the attributions was soon recognized: and so (to pass over three centuries of transition), in the parlance of Jerome, who has influenced posterity more than any one else in this matter, apocryphal means spurious, false, to be rejected and, probably, disliked.”

These writings are not apostolic nor are they historic, they do nothing to instill true religion, and can only be categorized as romantic novels. Yet, they are the source of a dogma, which in time was to be as important as the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. The Obsequies of the Holy Virgin is the earliest fragment dealing with the after-life of Mary. There are a number of Assumption texts in Syriac, Greek, Coptic, Arabic and Latin. The two main texts are the Greek, supposedly written by John; (already referred to in the Catholic Encyclopedia), and the Latin text called Pseudo-Melito. A few excerpts from this narrative should help us see the caliber of writing we are dealing with. Mary is in her dwelling place weeping, when an angel appears to her, “Behold, said he, this palm branch. I have brought it to thee from the paradise of the Lord, and thou shall cause it to be carried before thy bier on the third day when thou shalt be taken up out of the body. . . And behold, suddenly, while Saint John was preaching at Ephesus, on the Lord’s day, at the third hour, there was a great earthquake, and a cloud raised him up and took him out of the sight of all and brought him before the door of the house where Mary was . . . And lo, suddenly by the command of God all the apostles were lifted up on a cloud and caught away from the places where they were preaching and set down before the door of the house wherein Mary dwelt. . . And immediately when the Lord had so said he was lifted up in a cloud and received into heaven, and the angels were taken up upon clouds and returned everyone to the lot of his preaching declaring the mighty works of the God and praising the Lord Jesus Christ” (The Apocryphal New Testament, pp. 210-216).

Can you imagine Peter being transported on a cloud to the household of Cornelius? How credible would the story of the triumphant entry have been if the palm branches in the peoples hands had been from the paradise of God?

Jerome was right when he said, “Apocryphal means spurious, false, to be rejected.” How could the Catholic Church base a doctrine on such myths?

The Assumption In Development

Myths need time to develop and the Assumption of Mary is no exception. From the time of the apocryphal writings to the first of November 1950 when Pope Pius XII declared the Assumption of Mary a dogma of faith, was some 1600 years. During the time the belief waned and advanced according to the mood of the times. The tenth and eleventh centuries saw a significant advance in the formulation of the doctrine, through two theological forgeries, PseudoJerome and Pseudo-Augustine.

Michael O’Carroll takes up the story in his Theological Encyclopedia Theotokos (p. 58), “Towards the end of the eleventh or the beginning of the twelfth century a still more important work appeared, a treatise on the Assumption, theologically profound and claiming the authority of St. Augustine. Pseudo-Augustine gradually eclipsed PseudoJerome. By the thirteenth century, the great doctors taught the truth of Mary’s bodily Assumption; so did theologians of stature thereafter, until agreement was practically universal. ” Paul was right when he wrote to the Thessalonians: “And with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. And for this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they might believe what is false, in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness” (2 Thess. 2:10-12).

The writer of Ecclesiastes says, “There is an appointed time for everything. And there is a time for every event under heaven”; even for the formulation of the dogma on the assumption of Mary into heaven. “Between 1849 and 1950, numerous petitions for the dogma arrived in Rome. They came from 113 Cardinals, eighteen Patriarchs, 2,505 archbishops and bishops, 32,000 priests and men religious, 50,000 religious women, 8,000,000 lay people. On I May 1946 the Pope had sent to the bishops of the world the Encyclical Deiparae Virgins (qv), putting this question to them: ‘More especially we wish to know if you, Venerable Brethren, with your learning and prudence consider that the bodily Assumption of the Immaculate Blessed Virgin can be proposed and defined as a dogma of faith and whether in addition to your own wishes this is desired by your own clergy and people.’ When the replies were collated, it was found that twenty-two residential bishops out of 1181 dissented, but only six doubted that the Assumption was revealed truth, the others questioned the opportuneness. Figures for dissent among other categories were; Abbots and Prelates nullius, two out of fifty-nine; Vicars Apostolic, three out of 206; titular bishops, five out of 381. The Pope interpreted the universal agreement of the ‘ordinary teaching authority’ as a ‘certain and firm proof’ that the Assumption is a truth that has been revealed by God” (Theotokos, p. 56).

In the annals of Catholic jurisprudence the formulation of this dogma is unique; no, it’s revolutionary! For the first time ever the hierarchy did not decide for the people but the people for the hierarchy. No doubt this will act as a precedent in the further development of Marian doctrines. From now on the formulation of dogma has a new set of rules. It no longer needs scriptural authority nor traditional backing, all it needs is a universal consensus of the laity and clergy. Henceforth, the Catholic Church can manufacture its own truth!

There are approximately 700,000,000 Catholics in the world. All of them are required to believe in the Assumption of Mary with the same conviction they have about the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. The question is often asked, “Can 700,000,000 people be wrong?” Well, the Assumption of Mary, as we have discovered, is unscriptural. It has no historical foundation. Its roots are traceable to the romantic fiction of apocryphal writings. Its development nurtured by theological forgeries. Can 700,000,000 people be wrong? Judge for yourself!

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 12, pp. 360-362
June 21, 1990

By Robert F. Turner

This writer has only memories of singing in a men’s choral group, with a quartet, teaching “Singing Schools” or leading singing for gospel meetings. The years have taken their toll, so my scratchy voice barely makes it through a weak bass as we worship. But experience has taught me some things about worshiping God in song, and my hearing (poor as it is) tells me many churches are not attaining their potential in good congregational singing. It may be they do not care enough to make the effort necessary for good singing. But “singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord” is within the reach of every saint, and we should do all possible to encourage that response.

First, we should define our use of “good” for there are wide differences here. We mean “good” within the scriptural purpose of worship: “teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs” and “making melody in your heart to the Lord” (Col. 3:16; Eph. 5:19). We do not mean “good entertainment” to please ourselves or impress our visitors. We do not expect classic choral excellence, or a talent display. It seems, however, that coming together before God demands that we do our best within our worship purpose. We should not be satisfied with anything less than our best.

Good congregational singing is the result of worshiping together, a true blending of happy hearts that are one emotionally. True, each of us must sing his own praise to God, and to this end he must understand the message of the song, and genuinely repeat it in his heart. But congregational singing takes the individual’s worship further, making it a mutual praise of God, and uniting brethren as little else can. Done properly, our voices are joined in a general caress. We feel together, exhibiting a fellowship of love of God and for one another. The basis for mutual love is another subject, but we can make suggestions for its expression. We believe whatever is necessary for such oneness should be encouraged and pursued.

Good congregational singing can only follow the proper selection of songs. They should be scriptural: suited to the mood of exhortation, the Lord’s supper, prayer, invitation, etc. They should be neither choral numbers, requiring an expertise we do not have; nor foot stomping, country-western type songs that substitute sensual enthusiasm for genuine worshipful emotions. An inexperienced song leader may select some fancy song he “likes,” but which is completely unsuited to the abilities of the group he is leading. It may require an alto or bass lead when there are few who can carry these parts. Too, how can hop, skip, jump, repeat, and the like help us “sing together”? This is more than a matter of musical “taste.” When either the aesthetic or rhythmic appetites of man dictate and motivate our singing, it ceases to be worship.

To sing together we must sing the same tune in a key all can reach. That means a song leader must know the song, and how to correctly pitch it. If he does not know music he should feel responsibility enough to get with some one who does, and allow him to help him correctly lead the songs selected. The basics of music necessary for congregational singing are not difficult for most who really try, and are willing to practice. We are not saying one must know the technicalities of music to worship acceptably. But since the majority of members sing from memory it is extremely important they learn the songs correctly from the first. Those leaders and singers who want to do their best will welcome positive correction.

Singing together involves time and rhythm, a feeling for the “beat” of the song. Most people can pat their foot with some degree of regularity, which means they have inborn timing, but it may need practice and adjusting to the rhythm of various songs. Four-four time (look for the “signature” at the beginning of the musical notes) has a marching rhythm: Left, right, left, right; or strong, weak, strong, weak. We can best stay together if the leader indicates the correct, positive rhythm with hand and voice, and all singers feel this inner pulsation as they sing. Three-four time is a “waltz” rhythm: strong, weak, weak; strong, weak, weak. Practice at home, by just saying “strong, weak, weak,” over and over, with emphasis on “strong.” All songs have their distinctive rhythms, and it is well within the capability of most congregations to sing better by observing them.

Finally, beyond the mechanics of music, yet very necessary for good congregational singing, is the attention that should be given to the words and mood of the song selected. “Praise Him, Praise Him, Jesus our blessed redeemer” is a joyous song. The music is like the ringing of bells: they are pealing as for a wedding, not tolling as for a funeral. Tune your heart to the mood and meaning of the words, and you will find the music matches that attitude. Done in a spirited way we truly sing praises unto God; but dragged along, it becomes monotonous and more like a dirge than praise. “Peace, Perfect Peace” with its slower, steady and even progression, is written to compliment its words, and produce a mood of peace. It “whispers peace within,” is “calm” and “restful,” in keeping with its words.

Worship should come from the heart, and we do not wish to encourage some mechanical process for stirring emotions. We are saying that if songs are selected that fit the phase of worship at hand, and used properly, they will express our deepest emotions and improve our service to God. We are well aware we cannot “teach singing” via this article, and that is not our purpose. Instead, we want to encourage song leaders to take their job seriously and responsibly; and we hope brethren in the pews will make a greater effort to improve their singing.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 12, pp. 359-360
June 21, 1990

By Stan Adams

We would use the term, “watch out.” The term speaks to the fact of impending peril, and issues a warning, in order to avoid loss. It is used in Colossians 2:8 – “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world and not after Christ.” Again, we are warned by Christ in Matthew 7:15 – “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves.”

In these two passages we are told to be careful and beware about what we are taught. We are warned that we can be led astray by those who appear to have our best interest at heart. Often, those we admire, can lead us into heresy and we may not even know it, because we are prejudiced by their good traits.

I have been a member of the church for 25 years and in a preacher’s household for 37. I have watched and observed my father fret over having to deal with false teachers. I have watched him be demeaned, and be accused of lack of love because he stood his ground on Truth and would not back up. The observations of Christ and of Paul are very accurate and are still true. We should be ever aware of the possibility that we, or someone we love, may teach false doctrine and draw others away from their hope. In the time I have been a Christian, I have observed the tactics of false teachers, and have listened to sound brethren more seasoned than I am in their description of false teaching and its pattern.

Let us notice some attributes of false teaching.

False Teaching

1. Often portrays itself as uncertain. Error claims to be a learning process, but it never comes to a steadfast conclusion (2 Tim. 3:7). Error teaches by questioning, never takes a position that can be attributed definitely. It allows others to always wonder what the belief is.

2. False teaching is often done by those who view themselves as the free-thinkers of the day (Acts 17:21). In this passage we see the Athenians were forever interested in “some new thing.” One who teaches false doctrine often sees himself as an innovator, one who rejects all the “traditional ideas,” and is willing to mold for himself some new doctrine. Many of the young men I went to school with followed this pattern and are now in apostasy.

3. False teaching is deceitful. It does not advertise itself as dangerous and often on the surface seems innocent. When it is discovered for what it is and is challenged, it often goes underground until conditions are safe to surface again. Those who followed Holt, Ketcherside, and Fudge were told not to reveal what they believed all at once, but to keep people wondering and unsure. Matthew 7:15 tells us that it appears as innocent as a lamb.

4. False teaching turns people against one another. It divides, shatters and splinters until a full path of destruction is laid. Then, sadly, there are some sad soldiers on the edges of the battlefield, who stand and wring their hands, and wonder what happened, and remember when someone admonished them to stand or be consumed, but it is too late!

5. False teaching would like for every issue to be a “matter of judgment.” It would have you believe that vital issues that are matters of doctrine are minor points, and that “we all come out at the same place anyhow, so what is the big deal?” Does that sound to you like your Baptist friend, when spoken to about baptism? He will say, “We both believe in baptism, what difference does it make, whether or not it is for remission of sins?” The live-and-let-live philosophy is gendered by false teaching. Sympathizers with false teaching often are “Milquetoast” Christians who will not agree with the error, but will not take an active stand against it. This makes them a partaker of the evil deeds accomplished by false doctrine (2 Jn. 9-11).

6. False teaching often portrays itself as being misunderstood. “You didn’t hear me right,” or “I didn’t mean it.” We all know that as humans we will slip and misspeak, occasionally, but when we develop a pattern of telling folks we have been misunderstood, we are either involved in false teaching, or do not know what we are talking about, and ought to keep quiet and not advertise our doubts as doctrine. Much harm is done in the church because Christians get together to “study” and all that occurs is a mass pooling of ignorance, with everyone leaving more confused than when he came, but “feeling good,” because we have “studied without the shackles of tradition.”

All Christians should beware of false doctrine and be unafraid to oppose it. In order to do this we must be studious (2 Tim. 2:15). We must be aware of the tactics of error, and be unafraid as David was when he met Goliath. When error is espoused, it is a slap in the face of our Savior, who died to bring us salvation and hope, not confusion and uncertainty. That should make us upset! I have never been accused of liking a fight. I have always done what I could to avoid one, but that does not mean indignation cannot come to the front when Truth is challenged. Beware! and put your armor on! (Eph. 6:10-18)

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 12, p. 358
June 21, 1990

By Mark Mayberry

Despite the Lord’s plea in the garden of Gethsemane (Jn. 17:20-21), today’s religious world is tragically divided. This situation exists because people hold to many different standards of authority. Catholics look to the Pope. The Mormons base their doctrines on the writings of Joseph Smith. The Seventh Day Adventists follow the teachings of Ellen G. White. Other denominations have their creeds, manuals, disciplines and confessions of faith, traditions, and human doctrines. The resulting confusion is obvious.

When there is no accepted standard, chaos is inevitable. According to our established standards of weights and measurements, a yard is equal to 36 inches. Yet, what if various stores had different standards? What if Wal-Mart said a yard was equal to 28 inches, but K-Mart said it was equal to 40 inches? This sort of situation existed in the early days of our country. The colonies had differing standards of weights and measures, making commerce difficult and confusing.

This article focuses on the subject of Bible authority. No more important theme could be studied. The question of authority is at the heart of every religious issue. It is imperative that men recognize the same standard of authority in religion. It is also imperative that men recognize the right standard of authority in religion. This is the only path to unity.

A. The Nature of Religious Authority

Are we going to look for the right standard of authority in the subjective or the objective realm? Shall we rely on our own feelings or upon the revealed word of God?

1. Subjective religion is based on man’s will. Many people approach religion subjectively. That is, their convictions are based upon personal feelings. They say, “This is how I feel. . . . This is what I think. . . This is what I believe.” Yet, man cannot direct his steps in the area of religious truth (Jer. 10:23). The heart cannot be trusted because it is often deceitful (Jer. 17:9).

2. Objective religion is based on God’s will. The final court of appeal in religion is higher than man. We must put our faith in something greater than ourselves. In religious matters, it is not our own views that are important, but rather what God has revealed. Truth is not subjective, i.e., it does not originate with a person’s own thinking. The Bible is an objective standard that must be studied and obeyed (2 Tim. 2:15; Jn. 8:32). Recognizing that the creeds and opinions of men are not authoritative, let us focus on the divine standard of authority, the Bible.

B. The Source of Religious Authority

1. God. The ultimate source of all religious authority is God. As Creator of the universe, Jehovah has inherent authority (Gen. 1:1). Since God is the potter and we are the clay, he has the right to mold and make us after his will (Isa. 64:8).

2. Christ. God has delegated authority unto the Son (Matt. 28:18-19; Jn. 5:19-23; Heb. 1:1-2). He now sits at the Father’s right hand, as King of kings and Lord of lords. Because of his exalted position, it is imperative that we respect the authority of Christ (Acts 3:22-23; Col. 3:17).

3. The Apostles. Christ delegated authority to his apostles (Matt. 18:18; Jn. 13:20). Before his crucifixion, Jesus promised that they would be given the Holy Spirit. In this way, they would be given a perfect remembrance of his teaching and would be guided into all the truth (Jn. 14:25-26; 16:12-14). The apostles and prophets did not claim originality for the things that they wrote. Instead, they received their message by revelation (Gal. 1:11-12; Eph. 3:1-5).

4. The Bible. Today God speaks to us through the New Testament (1 Thess. 2:13). The Scriptures are “inspired,” which literally means “God-breathed” (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:20-21). To guard against any possible mistake, God was active throughout the whole process of revelation (2 Sam. 23:1-2; 1 Cor. 2:1-13). As originally delivered, the gospel message is infallible and inerrant. Furthermore, through divine providence man continues to have access to the inspired word of God.

Some have argued that the Bible cannot be understood. Yet, salvation is contingent upon knowing and obeying the truth (Jn. 8:31-32). If men cannot understand the Bible, God didn’t clearly reveal his mind unto mankind. If this is so, the final judgment will not be fair because man will be judged by God’s word (Jn. 12:48). In reality, the Bible is clear and understandable (Psa. 119:105; Eph. 3:3-5). God’s revelation is perfect (Jas. 1:25), complete (2 Pet. 1:3), and final (Jude 1:3).

Conclusion

Because of its divine origin, we must accept and obey Bible truth (Matt. 7:21; 2 Thess. 1:7-9). Those who seek to please Christ will look to the Bible as their only source of authority in religious matters. God’s word will judge us in the last day. Thus we must recognize the sinfulness of adding to or taking away from the word of God (Deut. 4:2; Gal. 1:8-9; 2 Jn. 1:9).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 12, p. 364
June 21, 1990