![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2020\/08\/Newman1879.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Protestant anti-Catholic apologist Jason Engwer wrote the post, \u201cEarly Ignorance Of The Assumption Of Mary\u201d (8-15-20)<\/a>. His words will be in blue<\/span> below. Then I will make two arguments from analogy.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n Today is the Feast of the Assumption, commemorating Mary\u2019s alleged bodily assumption to heaven. There\u2019s a significant line of evidence that\u2019s seldom discussed that suggests the early Christians had no concept of an assumption of Mary. Many early patristic sources cite Enoch, Elijah, and Paul as examples of people who didn\u2019t die, were translated to heaven, etc., yet they never say any such thing about Mary or include her as an example<\/span> [extensive patristic citations then provided] . . .\u00a0Irenaeus, for instance, writes about the power of God to deliver people from death, and he cites Enoch, Elijah, and Paul (2 Corinthians 12:2) as illustrations of people who were \u201cassumed\u201d and \u201ctranslated\u201d, but he says nothing of Mary (Against Heresies<\/em>, 5:5). How likely is it that all of these sources, commenting in so many different contexts, would all refrain from mentioning Mary\u2019s assumption, even though they knew of it? They\u2019re sometimes describing Christian beliefs in general, not just their own, which makes their failure to mention Mary even more significant. If these early Christians held as high a view of Mary as Roman Catholicism does, or even close to so high a view, you\u2019d expect them to cite her more than anybody else. Instead, they don\u2019t cite her at all.<\/span><\/p>\n Many patristic sources highly praise Scripture as God\u2019s Word and provide extensive biblical texts in favor of the Christian doctrines that they defend. But no early patristic source says anything about the definition and exact nature of sola Scriptura<\/em><\/a> as the rule of faith [as provided by, e.g., James White, Normal Geisler, and Keith Mathison*]. Yet this is the Protestant rule of faith, and entire basis of its self-understood authority.<\/span> How likely is it that all of these sources, commenting in so many different contexts, would all refrain from mentioning the definition and exact nature of sola Scriptura<\/em> as the rule of faith, even though they [so we are told, supposedly] knew of it, and believed it? If these early Christians held to sola Scriptura<\/em> as the rule of faith as present-day Protestants do, or even close to so high a view, you\u2019d expect them to cite its definition quite prominently. Instead, they don\u2019t mention it at all.<\/span><\/p>\n [* Jason provides a slightly different and more succinct definition of sola Scriptura<\/em> in a<\/span> Facebook post from 5-12-20<\/a>: \u201cSola scriptura<\/em> could be explained in summary form by saying that scripture alone is our rule of faith. Or you could expand upon it by saying that scripture is the only special, public revelation that\u2019s extant.\u201d]<\/span><\/p>\n No early patristic source provides the complete list of the New Testament biblical canon until St. Athanasius in 367. Yet this is part and parcel of the Protestant rule of faith, sola Scriptura<\/em>, [one can\u2019t grant the Bible alone sole infallible authority unless one knows exactly what it is<\/em>] and entire basis of its self-understood authority.<\/span> How likely is it that all of these sources, commenting in so many different contexts, would all refrain [prior to 367] from mentioning the exact parameters of the canon of the New Testament, even though they [so we are told, supposedly] knew of it? If these early Christians held to the 27-book New Testament canon, as present-day Protestants do, or even close to such a view, you\u2019d expect them to mention this quite prominently. Instead, they don\u2019t mention it at all. And several of these fathers included books in the New Testament canon that no Christian today includes.<\/span><\/p>\n I made further such analogical arguments in a long article explaining my conversion to Catholicism<\/a>, citing Cardinal Newman and his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine<\/em>:<\/span><\/p>\n Some notion of suffering, or disadvantage, or punishment after this life, in the case of the faithful departed, or other vague forms of the doctrine of Purgatory, has in its favour almost a consensus of the first four ages of the Church.\u00a0(16)<\/span><\/p>\n No one will say that there is a testimony of the Fathers, equally strong, for the doctrine of Original Sin.\u00a0(17) In spite of the forcible teaching of St. Paul on the subject, the doctrine of Original Sin appears neither in the Apostles\u2019 nor the Nicene Creed.\u00a0(18)<\/span><\/p>\n [T]hese valuable insights into the doctrine of justification had been largely lost throughout much of Christian history, and it was the Reformers who recovered this biblical truth . . .During the patristic, and especially the later medieval periods, forensic justification was largely lost . . . Still, the theological formulations of such figures as Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas did not preclude a rediscovery of this\u00a0judicial\u00a0<\/i>element in the Pauline doctrine of justification . . .<\/span><\/p>\n [O]ne can be saved without believing that imputed righteousness (or forensic justification) is an essential part of the true gospel. Otherwise, few people were saved between the time of the apostle Paul and the Reformation, since scarcely anyone taught imputed righteousness (or forensic justification) during that period!\u00a0(19)<\/span><\/p>\n On the other hand, Protestants clearly accept developing doctrine on several fronts: the Canon of the New Testament is a clear example of such a (technically \u201cnon-biblical\u201d) doctrine It wasn\u2019t finalized until 397 A.D. The divinity of Christ was dogmatically proclaimed only at the \u201clate\u201d date of 325, the fully worked-out doctrine of the Holy Trinity in 381, and the Two Natures of Christ (God and Man) in 451, all in Ecumenical Councils which are accepted by most Protestants. So development is an unavoidable fact for both Protestants and Catholics.<\/span><\/p>\n *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n As regards the New Testament, Catholics and Protestants receive the same books as canonical and inspired; yet . . . the degrees of evidence are very various for one book and another . . . For instance, as to the Epistle of St. James . . . Origen, in the third century, is the first writer who distinctly mentions it among the Greeks and it is not quoted by name by any Latin till the fourth . . . Again: The Epistle to the Hebrews, though received in the East, was not received in the Latin Churches till St. Jerome\u2019s time . . . Again, St. Jerome tells us, that in his day, towards A.D. 400, the Greek Church rejected the Apocalypse, but the Latin received it. Again: The New Testament consists of twenty-seven books . . . Of these, fourteen are not mentioned at all till from eighty to one hundred years after St. John\u2019s death, in which number are the Acts, 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Colossians, 1st and 2nd Thessalonians, and James. Of the other thirteen, five, viz. St. John\u2019s Gospel, Philippians, 1st Timothy, Hebrews, and 1st John, are quoted but by one writer during the same period. On what ground, then, do we receive the Canon as it comes to us, but on the authority of the Church of the fourth and fifth centuries? . . . The fifth century acts as a comment on the obscure text of the centuries before it.\u00a0(20)<\/span><\/p>\n FOOTNOTES<\/span><\/p>\n 16. St. John Henry Cardinal Newman, An\u00a0Essay\u00a0on the Development of Christian Doctrine<\/em>: edition published by the University of Notre Dame Press, 1989, with a foreword by Ian Ker, from the 1878 edition of the original work of 1845; p. 21.<\/span> In another paper of mine<\/a>, I deal with many such instances of Protestant distinctives (as well as both Protestant and Catholic terminology) that never appear in the Bible:<\/span><\/p>\n [T]he New Testament never mentions an \u201caltar call\u201d. It never has the typical \u201csinner\u2019s prayer\u201d of evangelicals. It doesn\u2019t mention church buildings. It never uses the word\u00a0\u201cTrinity.\u201d It never uses\u00a0the frequently mentioned evangelical terminology of \u201cpersonal relationship with Jesus.\u201d . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Other beliefs or practices not explicitly mentioned in the Bible are Bible studies, separating young people during church services, and grape juice as an element to be consecrated for communion (rather than wine), \u201casking Jesus into one\u2019s heart,\u201d a \u201cbody of believers,\u201d Scripture interpreting Scripture (the more clear helping to understand the less clear), agreeing on \u201cessential\u201d or \u201cprimary\u201d doctrines and permitted relativism regarding \u201cnon-essential\u201d or \u201csecondary\u201d doctrines, denominations (vs. the biblical \u201cone Church\u201d). Of course,\u00a0this very idea<\/em>\u00a0that one must find explicit biblical proof for every doctrine or it can\u2019t \/ mustn\u2019t be believed (even with high selectivity or rank inconsistency) is not found in the Bible anywhere, either. It\u2019s (irony of all ironies!) a mere tradition of men.<\/span><\/p>\n Some popular Protestant (and also often Catholic) words or phrases \u00a0that do not appear in the Bible are\u00a0rapture<\/em>,\u00a0invisible church<\/em>,\u00a0incarnation<\/em>,\u00a0virgin birth<\/em>,\u00a0holy communion<\/em>,\u00a0Lord\u2019s prayer<\/em>,\u00a0Bible<\/em>,\u00a0original sin<\/em>,\u00a0fall of man<\/em>,\u00a0theology<\/em>,\u00a0go[ing] to church<\/em>,\u00a0grace alone<\/em>,\u00a0[total] depravity<\/em>,\u00a0unconditional election<\/em>,\u00a0limited atonement<\/em>,\u00a0irresistible grace<\/em>,\u00a0perseverance of the saints<\/em>,\u00a0spirituality<\/em>,\u00a0Scripture alone<\/em>,\u00a0pray for guidance<\/em>,\u00a0pray for direction<\/em>,\u00a0spiritual warfare<\/em>, and\u00a0sin nature<\/em>.\u00a0Faith alone<\/em>\u00a0only appears once:<\/span><\/p>\n James 2:24 <\/strong>[RSV]\u00a0<\/strong>You see that a man is justified by works and\u00a0not<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0by\u00a0<\/b>faith alone<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n Protestants manage to believe all these things (or use these words) with no problem whatever. Why? Or, more specifically, why do they believe these things, which are absent from or non-explicit in the Bible, while giving Catholics misery for similar things, or else doctrines and practices with far\u00a0more<\/em>\u00a0indication of various sorts than the things above, that Protestants accept? Why the double standard? Or is it just that the Protestants who sling these sorts of \u201carguments\u201d about never think about them very deeply, or have never met a Catholic who can show that they are very weak arguments indeed?<\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n That noted, I provide many articles that deal with the question of the alleged total<\/em> \u201cabsence\u201d of the Assumption of Mary from Holy Scripture. Again, I reiterate that there is more<\/em> about Mary\u2019s Assumption in Scripture than there is about the biblical canon and the definition and exact nature of sola Scriptura<\/em>: that is, nothing at all<\/em> in both cases; zip, zero, zilch.<\/span><\/p>\n Assumption & Immaculate Conception: Part of Apostolic Tradition<\/a>\u00a0(vs. James White) [June 1996]<\/p>\n Mary\u2019s Assumption: Dialogue w Evangelical Protestant<\/a>\u00a0[1-21-02]<\/p>\n Bodily Assumption of Mary: Harmonious with the Bible?<\/a>\u00a0[2002]<\/p>\n Mary\u2019s Assumption: Brief Explanation, with a New (?) Biblical Parallel<\/a>\u00a0[3-1-07]<\/p>\n Mary\u2019s Assumption vs. Material Sufficiency of Scripture?<\/a>\u00a0[4-22-07]<\/p>\n Mary\u2019s Bodily Assumption: Eleven Related Bible Passages<\/a>\u00a0[2009]<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Defending Mary (Revelation 12 & Her Assumption)<\/a>\u00a0[5-28-12]<\/p>\n Is Mary\u2019s Assumption Able to be Inferred from Scripture Alone?<\/a>\u00a0[8-14-15]<\/p>\n Bible on Mary\u2019s Assumption<\/a>\u00a0[2015]<\/p>\n \u201cArmstrong vs. Geisler\u201d #7: Mary\u2019s Assumption<\/a>\u00a0[3-1-17]<\/p>\n Armstrong vs. Collins & Walls #6: Assumption, Queen Redux<\/a>\u00a0[10-19-17]<\/p>\n Biblical Arguments in Support of Mary\u2019s Assumption<\/a>\u00a0[National Catholic Register<\/em>, 8-15-18]<\/p>\n\n
Newman proceeded to make brilliant specific analogies in order to bring home his point. The first had to do with the doctrine of purgatory, vis-a-vis the doctrine of original sin, which is, of course, accepted by Protestants as well:<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nNewman then recounts no less than sixteen Fathers who hold the view in some form. But in comparing this consensus to the doctrine of original sin, we find a disjunction:<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nThis is a crucial distinction. It is a serious problem for Protestantism that it by and large inconsistently rejects doctrines which have a consensus in the early Church, such as purgatory, the (still developing) papacy, bishops, the Real Presence, regenerative infant baptism, apostolic succession, and intercession of the saints, while accepting others with far less explicit early sanction, such as original sin. Even many of their own foundational and distinctive doctrines, such as the notion of\u00a0Faith Alone<\/i>\u00a0(sola fide<\/i>), or imputed, extrinsic, forensic justification, are well-nigh nonexistent all through Church history until Luther\u2019s arrival on the scene, as, for example, prominent Protestant apologist Norman Geisler recently freely admitted:<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n\nThe trick for Protestants (granting Church history an important and legitimate role, whether it is considered normative and authoritative or not), is to determine a non-arbitrary rationale for accepting some doctrines while rejecting others. It will not do to simply say that certain doctrines are \u201cunbiblical\u201d and thus unworthy of Protestant allegiance, since it must immediately be explained why the majority of early Christians believed in them, and why beliefs such as the Canon of the New Testament and\u00a0Scripture Alone<\/i>\u00a0are adopted despite the absence of biblical rationale, or why (chances are) many other strands of Protestantism disagree with the one making the claim, when Scripture is allegedly so \u201cclear\u201d and able to be interpreted in the main without difficulty by the layman.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nNewman writes, regarding the New Testament Canon:<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
\n17.\u00a0Ibid<\/i>., p. 21.<\/span>
\n18.\u00a0Ibid<\/i>., p. 23.<\/span>
\n19.\u00a0Norman L. Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie,\u00a0Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences<\/i>, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1995,\u00a0 pp. 247-248, 503.<\/span>
\n20. Newman,\u00a0Essay<\/i>, pp. 123-126.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n