![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2020\/11\/MaryAssumption.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
This is a reply to\u00a0Matt Slick<\/a>: Presbyterian pastor and head of the large and influential anti-Catholic Protestant\u00a0CARM<\/a>\u00a0discussion forum. I am responding to his article, \u201cThe Bodily Assumption of Mary.\u201d<\/a>\u00a0His words will be in\u00a0blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n For such a supremely important dogma of the Church that must be believed to be a faithful Christian, one would think that it would be found in God\u2019s Inspired Word, the Bible.\u00a0 But, it is not.\u00a0 There isn\u2019t a single mention in God\u2019s word.\u00a0 The Vatican admits as much: \u201cthe New Testament does not explicitly affirm Mary\u2019s Assumption,\u201d (<\/span>General Audience<\/a>, # 3, Pope John Paul II)<\/span><\/p>\n So, if it isn\u2019t in the Bible, where did the Roman Catholic church get this teaching?<\/span><\/p>\n Pastor Slick claims that the Assumption is totally absent<\/em> from Scripture. Then he quotes Pope st. John Paul II saying that it\u2019s not \u201cexplicitly\u201d in the Bible. These are, of course, two different things. After citing that, he goes right back to saying \u201cit isn\u2019t in the Bible.\u201d<\/span> This is shoddy and dishonest research: scandalous for a man of the cloth.<\/p>\n His own Reformed Protestant (Calvinist) tradition \u2014 and indeed other Protestant traditions \u2014\u00a0 draw the same distinction between implicit and explicit biblical teachings. The Westminster Confession of Faith (held by all or virtually all Reformed Protestants) states in 1:6:<\/p>\n The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man\u2019s salvation, faith and life,\u00a0is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture<\/em>: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed. (my italicized emphases)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Jeffrey Waddington, in his article, \u201cConfession and Theology: Explicit and Implicit Scriptural Teaching\u201d<\/a> (Place for Truth<\/em>, 6-22-16) elaborates:<\/p>\n Scripture is authoritative in what it expressly sets down and what can be deduced by good and necessary consequence. That is not to say that everything we think we can deduce from Scripture is authoritative but that what is deduced by good and necessary consequence is. We will have to build arguments to defend our understandings of Scripture and we will have to persuade the church. We will have to unpack our logic and the texts that come together to form the bedrock of our hermeneutical convictions. Maybe it would be nice if we had a proof text for everything. But I suspect not because God has chosen to give implicit authoritative teaching in the Bible. . . .<\/p>\n [W]e need to reckon with the fact that what the Bible teaches explicitly and implicitly is God\u2019s Word. Period. End of discussion.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n A version of this argument that I often use is to ask, \u201cwhere in the Bible does it say that all true doctrines must be explicitly<\/em> stated in Scripture?\u201d There is no such passage. Therefore, to require this is to appeal to an unbiblical tradition and not to Scripture itself. How ironic! But as I just showed, most Protestants recognize the distinction between explicit and implicit biblical teaching.<\/p>\n In\u00a0another paper of mine<\/a>,\u00a0I deal with many such instances of Protestant distinctives (as well as both Protestant and Catholic terminology) that never appear in the Bible:<\/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 . . .<\/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). . . .<\/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:<\/p>\n James 2:24\u00a0<\/strong>[RSV]\u00a0<\/strong>You see that a man is justified by works and\u00a0not<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0by\u00a0<\/b>faith alone<\/em>.<\/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 Another argument I use is to challenge Protestants to show us where their fundamental doctrine of sola Scriptura<\/em> is explicitly stated in Scripture. It\u2019s not, and more sophisticated Protestants will readily acknowledge this and argue that it is, nevertheless, able to be deduced from several other Scriptures. I disagree with the latter contention, too, but it is a position stated by many respectable, renowned Protestant apologists and theologians. The full doctrine, as stated by its most zealous Protestant adherents, is that Scripture is the only supreme and infallible authority for Christian doctrine [which excludes the infallibility and binding authority of Church and tradition].\u201d<\/p>\n The other example I give is the canonicity of biblical books. This is definitely not stated in the Bible itself, at all: not even implicitly. Yet Protestants believe in a 66-book canon (excluding seven deuterocanonical books that Catholics accept). Why? Well, they make various arguments about apostolicity, etc., but the fact remains that they had to accept authoritative apostolic tradition and Church proclamations in order to get to that point: in other words: principles of authority and the rule of faith that are expressly contradictory to sola Scriptura<\/em>.<\/p>\n Catholic arguments for the bodily Assumption of Mary are of the same nature. We have no objection to authoritative tradition and an authoritative Church, so we are not \u2014 like Protestants \u2014 internally contradictory<\/em> in our arguments for the Assumption. I have made several biblical arguments for it, that are implicit, deductive, and\/or arguments from analogy:<\/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<\/div>\n Mary\u2019s Bodily Assumption: Eleven Related Bible Passages<\/a>\u00a0[2009]<\/p>\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 One argument I make (in a nutshell) is that Mary\u2019s Immaculate Conception is able to be established from Scripture alone<\/a>, on the basis of Luke 1:28 and the deeper meaning of \u201cfull of grace\u201d and other passages on grace and its antithesis to sin. If that is established, then it would follow that Mary would not undergo decay after death, since this comes about through sin. It follows that she could be instantly resurrected, by God\u2019s will.<\/p>\n She is simply the first of all of the saved and elect persons who will be resurrected or \u201craised\u201d (see a host of New Testament passages<\/a> on that; notably, 1 Corinthians ch. 15). Catholics contend: \u201cwho better<\/em> to be the first to be raised, than the mother of Jesus: God the Son?\u201d Tradition has determined that it was plausible and fitting for this to occur. It may not be explicit in Scripture, but it is harmonious with it, and contradicts nothing in it. Mary was simply the first Christian to be resurrected.<\/p>\n We also find analogies to such a thing in, for example, Enoch and Elijah being taken immediately to heaven.<\/p>\n Because the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary is not found in the Bible, it must be derived from what Roman Catholicism calls\u00a0Sacred Tradition\u2013the oral tradition handed down from the apostles that is equal in authority to the Bible.\u00a0 Unfortunately, the first few hundred years of \u201ctradition\u201d make no mention whatsoever of the bodily assumption of Mary.\u00a0 In fact, we find contradictory evidence in Early Church Tradition.<\/span><\/p>\n Again, Protestants themselves have no problem in holding doctrines that are not explicitly biblical (sola Scriptura<\/em>), or not biblical at all (the canon of the biblical books), so why do they give us a hard time about the Assumption? It\u2019s a double standard. Many doctrines that they hold were not readily apparent, and far from the consensus<\/em> of the early Church and the Church fathers:<\/p>\n