Mary’s Assumption: Remarkably Fair Protestant Take

Joseph Hartropp wrote for Christian Today (8-15-17):

It’s very rarely noted by Protestants that a doctrine might be believed, even though it is not explicit in Scripture, because it is in harmony with Scripture, and not contradictory to anything in it. And it’s rare because Protestants think doctrines that are to be believed, must be explicit in Scripture: even though the Bible itself never makes this any sort of requirement, and even though Protestants believe other things, like the canon of Scripture, which are utterly absent from Scripture and are based only in tradition.

*

Even sola Scriptura: that central plank of the Protestant conception of Christian authority, is not explicitly laid out anywhere in the Bible, in its definition most used today: “Scripture is the only infallible authority and rule of faith for the Christian.”

*

I would say that the Assumption of Mary can be deduced from direct (though a bit obscure) evidence for Mary’s Immaculate Conception: from Luke 1:28 “full of grace” and further deductions about the relationship of grace to sin in Scripture made from that (arguments I have, of course, made myself, among my 3000+ blog posts).

*

The Catholic explanation is: “it’s altogether fitting and appropriate that the Immaculate Mother of the incarnate God the Son — the greatest of all of God’s creatures –, who reversed Eve’s ‘no’ with her ‘yes’ at the Annunciation, should not undergo decay of her body after death, and should be the ‘firstfruits’ of the general resurrection of believers made possible by her Son’s resurrection.”

*

That makes perfect sense (sounds exactly like something God would do) and is not in any way contrary to anything in the Bible.

*