![\"Facepalm2\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2016\/04\/Facepalm2.jpg\")
<\/div>\n*****<\/span><\/p>\n You have never tried to defend the Roman dogma of the assumption of Mary, and you know very well that many of your communion\u2019s scholars would never attempt to do so from Holy Scripture.<\/span><\/p>\n I wouldn\u2019t be so sure about it. I am merely a lay Catholic apologist and no scholar and I took a crack at it. I\u2019m sure far greater minds than mine have (at least in the way I will outline later on).<\/span><\/p>\n The Roman response here is typical, cut and paste anything that remotely appears to be a response to the issue at hand.<\/span><\/p>\n Just for the record, showing the usual sweeping King attack on large masses of people. We shall see how he responds to these criticisms of his<\/span> arguments. If experience is any guide at all, I would strongly advise anyone waiting eagerly to see what King will do with my reply to not hold your breath (or if you insist on doing so, to be sure to have a very good life insurance policy).<\/span><\/p>\n The retreat to material sufficiency on the part of any Roman Catholic is but an exercise of private judgment, because your communion has nowhere officially spoken authoritatively on the relationship of Scripture to tradition. <\/span><\/p>\n It has spoken a lot on the relationship per se, but it has not required Catholics to believe in the material sufficiency of Scripture or to deny it. We have freedom to believe either. The majority position among scholars is the former.<\/span><\/p>\n I know you know this because I\u2019ve told you repeatedly in the past in personal conversations. You know very well that a dogma like the assumption bears no scriptural support, not even implicitly.\u00a0<\/span> Your present pope, as a cardinal, is on record as having denied material sufficiency\u2026<\/span><\/p>\n Cardinal, now Pope Joseph Ratzinger, while commenting on the documents of Vatican II (article nine of Dei verbum), stated that <\/span>\u201cno one is seriously able to maintain that there is a proof in Scripture for every catholic doctrine.\u201d<\/b> See Joseph Ratzinger\u2019s \u201cThe Transmission of Divine Revelation\u201d in Herbert Vorgrimler, ed., <\/span>Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II<\/i> (New York: Herder and Herder, 1969), Vol. 3, p. 195.<\/span><\/p>\n He could very well mean that there is not explicit or clear <\/span>support for every doctrine, which is obvious, and which I would readily agree with.<\/span><\/p>\n Though he argues for material sufficiency, Cardinal Yves Congar states concerning examples of Roman tradition: <\/span>Certainly it would be impossible to prove in every case a truly apostolic origin; it is not even impossible that the contrary could be proved.<\/b> Yves M.-J. Congar, O.P., <\/span>Tradition and Traditions: An Historical Essay and A Theological Essay<\/i>, trans. Michael Naseby and Thomas Rainborough (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1966), p. 62.<\/span><\/p>\n In the sense of strict historiography, this could be asserted, yes. This causes no difficulty for the Catholic position.<\/span><\/p>\n . . . a dogma like the assumption has neither material support in Holy Scripture, nor in tradition. . . . Why even bother to appeal to material sufficiency or tradition, when neither can support a dogma like the assumption? . . . But I know, and you know, that the assumption is nowhere taught in Holy Scripture, and your alleged support for the material sufficiency of Holy Scripture is but wishful thinking, and a ruse to distract from the fact that you\u2019ve really embraced the principle of <\/span>sola ecclesia<\/i>. . . . you know that your own theologians have declared it has no support in Scripture, . . . <\/span><\/p>\n At this point (after Pastor King has presented his basic argument that he will now mostly repeat over and over like a mantra) it would be very useful to do a quick survey of just exactly what a Catholic means when they refer to material sufficiency of Scripture. I shall contend that Pastor King doesn\u2019t understand nuances in how a Catholic views this matter: qualifications that make a big difference regarding whether our belief in the dogma of the Assumption would contradict our conception of material sufficiency. If one uses Pastor King\u2019s incorrect definition, his conclusion would arguably follow. But once the correct definition is understood, it is seen that King\u2019s conclusion doesn\u2019t follow because his assumed premise (of definition) is false.<\/span><\/p>\n Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin provides a very helpful overview: in his article,<\/span> \u201cThe Complex Relationship between Scripture and Tradition\u201d<\/a>:<\/p>\n<\/div>\n As the Second Vatican Council stressed in its constitution Dei Verbum<\/i>, \u201cIt is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws its certainty about everything that has been revealed. Therefore both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence\u201d (DV 9). <\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n One of the principal architects of Dei Verbum<\/i> was the French theologian Yves Congar, who thought Catholics could acknowledge a substantial element of truth in sola scriptura<\/i>. <\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n He wrote that \u201cwe can admit sola scriptura<\/i> in the sense of a material sufficiency of canonical Scripture. This means that Scripture contains, in one way or another, all truths necessary for salvation\u201d (Tradition and Traditions<\/i>, 410).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n He encapsulated this idea with the slogan Totum in scriptura, totum in traditione<\/i> (\u201cAll is in Scripture, all is in Tradition\u201d), which he attributes to Cardinal Newman. According to this theory, Scripture and Tradition would not be two sources containing different material but two modes of transmitting the same deposit of faith. We might call it the \u201ctwo modes\u201d view as opposed to the \u201ctwo source\u201d view. <\/span> . . . Congar spoke only in terms of the Bible containing \u201call truths necessary for salvation.\u201d He did not speak of it containing all theological truths. This is an important distinction that comes up in discussions of sola scriptura<\/i>. <\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Protestants often define sola scriptura<\/i> by appealing to the idea that Scripture contains all truths needed for salvation. In practice, though, they often apply the term much more expansively, as if the Bible should be expected to contain all truths of Christian theology.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n . . . I certainly can\u2019t think of any truths directly connected with salvation that aren\u2019t at least alluded to in Scripture. <\/span>But if we apply it more broadly, problems emerge. There seem to be theological truths that are not mentioned in Scripture. For example, the Bible does not state that public revelation is closed. As far as I can tell, it is neither stated nor clearly implied. Nor does the Bible say that God will not inspire any more books of Scripture or that there will be no more apostles. One needed to be a witness of the ministry of Christ to be a member of the Twelve (Acts 1:21-22), but Christ appeared in a vision to name Paul an apostle, even though he was not an eyewitness. If he wanted, Jesus could have kept appearing to people throughout history and appointing them apostles. We know from Tradition that this didn\u2019t happen \u2014 that the apostles died out and handed the Church over to their successors, the bishops \u2014 but the Bible doesn\u2019t tell us this. . . .<\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Other truths of Tradition are not stated directly in Scripture but are implied clearly by the biblical author.<\/b> For example, while the Bible doesn\u2019t come out and say that the Holy Spirit is a person rather than a force, it is implied in numerous passages, such as those in which the Spirit is depicted as speaking to people (e.g., Acts 13:2), and the biblical authors meant us to understand this. <\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Some truths of Tradition can be inferred from Scripture even though the biblical authors did not clearly imply them.<\/b> For example, Christ having both a human will and a divine will can be inferred from his being \u201ctrue God and true man\u201d (CCC 464). Various biblical passages state or imply that he is true God and true man, but in none does the biblical author state or imply that he had two wills. We have to figure that out by inference.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n A truth is sometimes alluded to or reflected in the text even though it can\u2019t be proved from the text alone.<\/b> The Immaculate Conception may be reflected in what Gabriel says to Mary in Luke 1:28, and the Assumption may be reflected in the wings the woman is given in Revelation 12:14, but you couldn\u2019t prove these truths from the text alone.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Ironically, Pastor King radically contradicts himself (apparently without even knowing it) in his book,<\/span> Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, Volume I: A Biblical Defense of the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura<\/a>, by stating on page 129 (emphases added):<\/span> Now, think for a moment, the implications of this, and the vicious logical circle that will result. He demands of Catholics that they must find explicit support for the assumption of Mary in Scripture, lest they contradict their belief (i.e., for those who hold it<\/span>, since it\u2019s not required) in material sufficiency of Scripture.<\/span><\/p>\n But yet when it comes to his pet doctrine of sola Scriptura<\/span>, King freely admits that it may be simply deduced<\/span> from Scripture (!!). Well, if it is the case for this \u201cpillar of the Reformation\u201d \u2014 upon which all distinctively Protestant doctrines are built \u2013, that King allows mere deduction, then we must point out that this is, of course, exactly how the Assumption can also<\/span> be indicated in Scripture. Thus, it follows that King\u2019s position logically forces him to concede that the biblical evidence for the Assumption is not fundamentally lesser in kind than the biblical evidence for sola Scriptura<\/span>. This is what we call a double standard, if he continues to press the supposed huge difference where it, in fact, does not exist.<\/span><\/p>\n King is not alone in implying that the Bible doesn\u2019t contain explicit proof for sola Scriptura<\/span>. Protestant apologist Norman Geisler admits:<\/span><\/p>\n [T]he Bible does teach implicitly<\/span> and logically<\/span>, if not formally and explicitly<\/span>, that the Bible alone is the only infallible basis for faith and practice.<\/span><\/p>\n (Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences<\/span>, co-author, Ralph E. Mackenzie, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1995, 184; emphases added)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n He denies that there is either \u201cformal\u201d or \u201cexplicit\u201d biblical proof for this foundation of Protestant theology and its very rule of faith. So if even sola Scriptura<\/span> lacks this sort of biblical proof (and I would also deny that one can find even implicit or logical proof for it in Scripture), why is it required of Catholics to provide more for a doctrine like the Assumption? There are such things as \u201cimplicit\u201d and deductive proofs from Scripture or at least indications.<\/span> This has implications for the Assumption. If Mary indeed was preserved from original sin, then she would not undergo decay (i.e., she would be in a state or condition that held sway before the fall of man; see Gen 3:19; Ps 16:10). Therefore, when she departed this life, she would experience bodily resurrection immediately without her body undergoing decay. From one thing follows the other. If one is completely without sin, this arguably includes original sin, and without original sin, there is no decay; ergo, the Assumption follows as a matter of course.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
\nI don\u2019t know what Mr. Waltz knows \u201cvery well\u201d, according to you. But I know that I believe there is considerable implicit <\/span>support, as I shall show in due course.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\nThe decrees of Trent and Vatican II allow Catholics to hold the two-mode idea, but they do not require it. A Catholic is still free to hold the two-source view.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
\n\u201cScripture alone is the only certain, infallible norm by which all theology, doctrine, creeds (beliefs), practice and morality of the Christian Church is to be regulated, in accordance with that which is \u2018either expressly set down in Scripture, <\/span>or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture<\/span>\u2018\u2026\u201d <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\n
\nSo how does one find implicit or indirectly deduced support for the Assumption in Scripture? There are a number of ways to do this. For example, in my apologetic efforts I have maintained that the key component of the Immaculate Conception of Mary (sinlessness) is explicitly taught in Luke 1:28. By making a straightforward, deductive biblical argument, the Immaculate Conception (in its essence) can be strongly supported. There are many other arguments as well. My section: \u201cScriptural evidence: the Immaculate Conception of Mary\u201d in my book A Biblical<\/span> Defense of Catholicism<\/span><\/a>, ran 15 pages; filled with biblical arguments.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n