Next, is a brief treatment of the Assumption, one must ask themselves if Elijah and Enoch can be assumed into heaven, and if rapturists can believe that people will suddenly be raptured (assumed) bodily into heaven, then why not the Ark of the New Covenant?
In Rev 11 we read an interesting verse (remember when the scriptures were written there were no chapter and verse separations):
Rev 11:19 “And the temple of God was opened in heaven: and the ark of his testament was seen in his temple, and there were lightnings, and voices, and an earthquake, and great hail.”
And then right in the following verse we read:
“And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars:”
In the old manuscripts 12:1 reads right after 11:19; there was no division. That’s at least worthy to ponder.
Next, White asks,“How do you explain how it is you must believe these things de fide, by faith, when generations of Christians lived and died without ever even having heard of such things?”
Well you need to ask yourself, where in scripture does it describe the trinity as three divine persons? Where does scripture describe Jesus as having both a divine and human nature in a single hypostasis? How about worshipping God on Sundays?
All of that is implied in scripture but not explicitly. But all of that is also carry-overs from Catholicism.
What about other teachings not in the bible like age of accountabiliy? White believes in this one, infant baptism is a no-no. Many protestants will agree that all have sinned, right? (Rom 3:32) That’s commonly used to negate the Immaculate Conception. Well what about the age of reason? Are people not at or over the age of reason sinners, since all have sinned? If they’re not sinners then obviously not all have sinned, which would demolish their argument against the Immaculate Conception.
Nowhere in scripture is the age of reason defined, yet many protestants, including white, subscribe to it.
Nowhere in scripture is “accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior” mentioned, nor what it does.
What about imputed righteousness? Where’s that in the bible?
What about altar calls? Where does scripture mention that?
So yes, there are many things which protestants, White included, accept that the apostles and ECF’s did not. Second, if the Church provided for us a book with all of the writings inspired by God, why doesn’t it have the right to define new teaching? That’s not a biased claim, you can look it up that the canon of the bible wasn’t defined until long after christianity identified itself as “Catholic”.
And the number 1 question I would ask of such a person is: if you claim to have once embraced the gospel of grace, whereby you confessed that your sole standing before a thrice-holy God was the seamless garment of the imputed righteousness of Christ, so that you claimed no merit of your own, no mixture of other merit with the perfect righteousness of Christ, but that you stood full and complete in Him and in Him alone, at true peace with God because there is no place in the universe safer from the wrath of God than in Christ, upon what possible grounds could you come to embrace a system that at its very heart denies you the peace that is found in a perfect Savior who accomplishes the Father’s will and a Spirit who cannot fail but to bring that work to fruition in the life of God’s elect? Do you really believe that the endless cycle of sacramental forgiveness to which you will now commit yourself can provide you the peace that the perfect righteousness of Christ can not?
We’ve already seen that salvation is a process, not a one-time deal. Paul refers to salvation as a race (1Cor 9:24), that he does not fight in vain (1Cor 9:26). We’re called to persevere to be saved (Mat 10:22, 24:13). We can be cut off from the tree of life, that we must be believers to be a part of (John 15:6)
Salvation is a process, we can lose it. Second, where is “imputed righteousness” taught in the bible? Does not loving God with all of our heart require some action on our part? How about loving our neighbor? Does not obeying God’s will refelct in our actions? (James 2:16) Is it not the doers of the law, not the hearers of the law who are justified? (Rom 2:13)
Yet another doctrine with no scriptural basis. Pot meet kettle, Mr. White.