THE REMNANT PRINCIPLE

Catholics believe that their church is the “one true church” and that it always has been.  Protestants challenge that concept for many good reasons (which we will not go into here).  Catholics may respond, “But if we weren’t always the one true church, then who was the true church since the time of the apostles?  What group was there that could always claim to be following the truth?  Where were these true Christians (who were not Catholic) before the Reformation in the sixteenth century?” 

Someone answered that question this way: “Where was your face before you washed it?”  In other words, your face was there all the time, but it’s just that it got to the point of being unrecognizably dirty.  Or, it is like a ship that was once smooth, sleek, and fast-moving, but where is that ship now?  It is still there - it always remained - but is now weighed down and hopelessly encrusted with barnacles; it is now hidden, and unable to do what it was meant to do. 

 

In the same way, true believers in the early church have always been there, but through no fault of their own, their pure gospel message became gradually distorted until unrecognizable when the false teachings of Catholicism encrusted around it.  The Catholic Church, who was dominating the “church scene” before the Reformation, had, for the most part, lost the ability to recognize the simple truth of the gospel.

Ok, so who exactly were the true believers in the early church?  Catholics claim that there is no record of any group in the early church that had the fullness of truth (other than the Catholic Church, of course).  But Catholics are forgetting the “remnant principle.”  What is the remnant principle?  The following is an example of it:

The time was the ninth century B.C., during the reign of King Ahab in Israel.  The idolatry and other sins of the Jewish people abounded.  The prophet Elijah was disgusted with the Jews and their Baal worship, and he complained to God that he was the only person left who was serving God.  He truly felt all alone.  But the Lord God surprised Elijah when He told him:

“Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him. (1 Kings 19:18)

This is a biblical principle.  Throughout history God has always reserved for Himself a remnant, a group that is dedicated to serving God in the midst of an ungodly majority.  For example, Noah and his family were the remnant in the days of the great flood (Genesis 6).  And Lot and his family were the remnant during the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19).  These remnant groups not only represent the true believers in the Old Testament, but they are also a symbol of the true church in the New Testament (Matthew 24:37-39; Luke 17:26-30).

 

Someone may object, “But why is there only a remnant saved?  Aren’t most people going to Heaven?”  Unfortunately, that is not the case.  Being part of the biggest church around is not a guarantee that it holds the truth.  It is not always safe being in the majority.  In fact, it can be downright dangerous!  Jesus, Himself, said:

Enter ye in at the strait [narrow] gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.  (Matthew 7:13-14)

A big church does not necessarily produce the truth.  That goes for Protestants and Orthodox, as well.  But Catholicism was never the true expression of the church because of its many false teachings.  Rather, it is something that gradually “morphed” into the monstrosity that it is today (Matthew 13:31-32).  But while this giant grew in influence (both spiritually and politically), the true church was in the background.  God knew those true believers even if the Catholic Church didn’t.

This was similar to Elijah’s situation.  God had a remnant, but they just weren’t well known.  You would think that Elijah would have known about the 7,000 believers.  After all, wasn’t he one of the greatest prophets of God in the Old Testament?  So, if the great prophet, Elijah (who was supernaturally in direct communion with God) was unaware of the existence of the “true church” in his day, it is certainly possible that the Catholic Church was unaware of the existence of true believers back in the early church. 

 

Of course, some will say that Catholics were the true believers.  No, sorry, but the Catholic Church is disqualified from the title of “true church” because of its false teachings.  Nor does it automatically get to have the title because of its size or influence.  And just because there aren’t any records of similar “big” or “influential” churches back then, that does not make the Catholic Church the true church by default.

We have to remember, the term “true church” means those who are truly saved and serving God, and are biblically faithful.  It is made up of individuals whose hearts are right with God.  It is not just referring to a particular denomination, organization, or group. 

Again, God always has a remnant of true believers, whether we know them or not.  The records we have of the early church are certainly not complete.  But it doesn’t matter if you don’t have a record of every single believing group that ever existed over the centuries.  We have a God who promised that the true church would endure (Matthew 16:18).  A lack of records does not override or negate the biblical concept of the remnant principle.  So, to say that a true remnant didn’t exist because we have no record of it is foolish, arrogant, and unbiblical.

Conclusion

Catholic Premise:

“We have always been the ONLY group to have the fullness of truth.”

Catholic Conclusion:

“Therefore, we HAVE to have been the one true church all along.  If we weren’t, then there was NO church, and the gates of Hell have prevailed (Matthew 16:18), but Jesus would not let that happen.”

But if there was always a remnant of true believers, then this Catholic premise is wrong in the first place.  So, since there was a remnant, Jesus was right – we don’t have to worry that the gates of Hell have prevailed – because the true church has always existed, even if only in the form of a remnant, at times. 

 

But Catholics will still insist that they must be the one true church, since their church has been refuting heresies for centuries.  That may be, but what good is refuting all those heresies, while still embracing today the Judaizer heresy of adding to Jesus’ work on the cross (Acts 15:1, 5), directly contradicting the nature of the atonement and the very gospel, itself?

For anyone who still thinks that the Catholic Church should be considered the “one true church,” please feel free to read the articles on this blog, which we believe refute this idea and demonstrate the unbiblical nature of many of the Catholic Church’s teachings.

ASSUMING MARY’S ASSUMPTION

In 1950, Pope Pius XII declared in an “Apostolic Constitution” of the Catholic Church:

“…We pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.” (Munificentissimus Deus, paragraph 44)

Note that this is not just any kind of teaching, it is a DOGMA (an irreversible and “infallibly declared” doctrinal statement of the Catholic Church).  Catholics are required to believe it, and if they don’t, the pope goes on to say, “Let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic faith...” and will “incur the wrath of Almighty God…”  This same dogma is also found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC #966 and #974) and in the Catholic Church’s “Dogmatic Constitution,” Lumen Gentium (paragraph 59).

Ok, as you might expect, the word “assumption” has several meanings in English, but the only ones we want to focus on now that are relevant to this topic are these two basic meanings:

#1) It can mean the Catholic Church’s idea of the taking up of Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ, into Heaven, body and soul, which is celebrated every year by Catholics on August 15.  Or,

#2) It can mean an assuming that something is true; a mistaken assumption; a statement (such as a proposition, axiom or notion) taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition.

When Catholics use the term, “Mary’s Assumption,” they are speaking of meaning #1 above.

But we Protestants would apply the meaning of #2 above toward the Catholic Church’s teaching itself on Mary’s Assumption and say that it is an assumption indeed, i.e., it is assumed and cannot be proven. 

We also maintain that Mary’s Assumption is not biblical, i.e., it cannot be found in the Bible.  To this idea, Catholic speaker, author, and apologist John Martignoni tells us in one of his latest newsletters that when someone says that Mary’s Assumption is not in the Bible, he (Martignoni) says:

“Well, I generally handle this objection to the Church’s teaching on the Assumption by asking one question: ‘Does the Bible somewhere say that Mary was not assumed into Heaven?’  The answer, of course, is no – the Bible nowhere says that Mary was not assumed into Heaven.  So then I ask, ‘Well if the Bible doesn’t say she wasn’t assumed into Heaven, then why can’t I believe she was?’” 

 

Martignoni’s newsletter can be found here:

https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/393-mary-and-the-bible-part-3

So why can’t you believe that she was assumed into Heaven?  Well, John, it’s because it is just an assertion, and you need evidence to back up that assertion.  Note first that John Martignoni wants us to prove a negative – to prove the non-existence of Mary’s assumption.  But when anyone makes a positive assertion (like “Mary was assumed into Heaven, body and soul”), the burden of proof is on him to prove it, not on us to disprove it.  

But when they are unable to prove it, they sometimes resort to the “double-negative” tactic, like Martignoni does.  Almost any time an opponent mentions a double-negative like he does here (e.g., “The Bible does NOT say that she WASN’T assumed”), this is a sign that the person is getting desperate.  Simply saying, “But the Bible doesn’t say it didn’t happen to Mary” is not a valid argument at all.  We could also say the same thing for dozens of other people in Scripture – “The Bible also doesn’t say that it didn’t happen to (whomever - fill in the blank), therefore it could have also happened to them, as well!” 

Fortunately, most people are understanding enough to see through this very poor argument.  Just saying that it is possible does not make it true… for Mary or anyone else.

We do want to point out that no one is saying that the concept of a bodily assumption is not biblical.  We agree that it certainly can be.  But the biblical question is not whether it can happen, or has happened, but the question is “To whom has it happened?”

We have clear biblical evidence that Enoch (Genesis 5:24) and Elijah (2 Kings 2:11) experienced some sort of bodily assumption.  But we have no biblical evidence of anything like this happening to Mary.  So it seems strange that the Bible would mention the assumption of Enoch and Elijah, but not Mary’s.  No Catholic would deny that she is more important than Enoch or Elijah.  So, if that’s true, then why the silence on her assumption?

As an attempt at producing “biblical evidence” for the Assumption, Catholics will sometimes point to Revelation 12:1, which speaks of the “woman clothed with the sun,” and will say that this is Mary in bodily form in Heaven.  But this is not the case at all.  The “woman” in Revelation 12 is Israel, not  Mary.  See here:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/09/is-mary-woman-clothed-with-sun.html

There are a few other Bible verses that some Catholics will try to use in an attempt to show that this teaching is biblical.  They will use all kinds of unverifiable typology where they see “Mary” in every object and under every stone, and try to shoehorn her into an “assumption role.”  But they must go to absurd lengths to make any of these “types” fit.

In conclusion, just saying that something is true does not make it true.  Saying that it is “fitting” or that it should have happened also does not make it a fact.  If it were a biblical idea, we wouldn’t have an issue with it.  But it is not.  Yet, the Catholic Church claims that the Assumption of Mary is not only a scriptural truth, but a dogma that her members are obligated to believe, but the Church fails miserably in providing evidence for this teaching.  

Furthermore, most Catholics don’t know that the origin of the teaching of the Assumption is very questionable and is “shrouded in history’s mist.”  It was not the teaching of the church for 2000 years, as Catholics claim.  It was not taught by the early church fathers and it cannot be traced back to the apostles.  In fact, it first appears in “apocryphal” (hidden, false, doubtful, uninspired) literature around the fifth century that was condemned by (at least) two popes as HERESY.  

See this article:

http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/assumption.html

 

Some Catholics will say, “But Mary had to have been bodily assumed.  There are no relics (bones, ashes, clothing, etc.) from her that were ever found.  Surely, if there were, this would have been mentioned in the early church.”  But if Mary’s bones would “surely” have been mentioned, then why hasn’t something as important as the Assumption “surely” been mentioned in the same early church?

So why is this topic important in the first place?  It is because the Catholic Church is using not just this one teaching, but many different Marian teachings to divert attention away from Jesus onto Mary, His mother.  The Mary of the Bible - the humble handmaid of the Lord (Luke 1:38, 48) - would never approve of such attention toward herself, nor the detracting of attention from her Son.  As we’ve said before, the real Mary would join with John the baptist in saying, “He (Jesus) must increase, but I (Mary) must decrease (John 3:30).  But the very opposite is happening in the Catholic Church worldwide.  Whether intentional or not, the Catholic Church has created an idol in Mary through all these unbiblical claims.  But the Bible tells us to flee idolatry (1 Corinthians 10:14).

Once again, the Catholic Church’s teaching on Mary’s bodily assumption into Heaven is just that, an assumption in the worst sense, a concept that cannot be proven from God’s Word or from any other reputable source.