Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
History and Religion
Armstrong vs. Collins & Walls #6: Assumption, Queen Redux

Armstrong vs. Collins & Walls #6: Assumption, Queen Redux

Last updated on: June 6, 2026 at 12:33 am by Dave Armstrong

Armstrong vs. Collins & Walls #6: Assumption, Queen Redux 2026-06-06T00:33:49-04:00 Dave Armstrong

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

MaryAssumption7

This is one of my many critiques of the book entitled, Roman but Not Catholic: What Remains at Stake 500 Years after the Reformation, by evangelical Protestant theologian Kenneth J. Collins and Anglican philosopher Jerry L. Walls (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2017).

*****

Kenneth Collins, in his chapter 16: “Mary Again: From Dogmatic definition to Co-Redeemer?,” makes the usual objections to Mary’s Assumption being a late-arriving doctrine among the Church fathers. Yes; it developed slowly and relatively late, but this is not some sort of “death blow” because so did many doctrines that Protestants accept, such as aspects of the Hypostatic Union, the Holy Trinity, original sin, opposition to iconoclasm, etc. In fact, some doctrines that Protestants accept, didn’t develop at all; they just suddenly sprang up in the 16th century out of whole cloth: things like, say, sola Scriptura and sola fide: the two so-called “pillars of the Reformation.” And they have no scriptural warrant at all, either. I wrote two books about the former.

I have made several purely scriptural arguments regarding Mary’s Assumption (one / two / three / four / five), which are directly deduced from other purely scriptural arguments of various sorts for Mary’s Immaculate Conception (one / two / three / four / five). Since I have written about them, I’ll simply link and not repeat myself here. Suffice it to say that such things do exist. And it’s also noteworthy that Martin Luther believed in a somewhat modified version of the Immaculate Conception of Mary (one / two / three), and “reformer” Heinrich Bullinger believed in her Assumption, as did Luther (in a qualified sense), many early and historic Lutherans, and many more traditional Anglicans (see the evidences).

Collins again objects to the notion of the Queen Mother (analogized to Mary) sitting at the king’s (Jesus’) right hand, even though this is an expressly biblical concept (Ps 45:1, 9; 1 Ki 2:19; including also a crown and a throne), as I noted in my installment about “Queen of Heaven.” Why is it an issue of contention, then? Protestants demand scriptural support for doctrines. If it is relatively sparse or indirect (as with the Assumption), they sure make hay of that. But if it is present (as with the Queen Mother —> Queen of Heaven motif), they still make hay of it.

I guess we Catholics can’t win no matter what we do! It seems to come down to whether a Protestant “likes” a doctrine or not — whether he or she personally resonates with it — , as opposed to whether it can be supported in some way from Scripture. After all, sola Scriptura and sola fide cannot be supported from Scripture at all, yet nevertheless, Protestants make them their two “pillars”; make the former their rule of faith and the latter is often (in some Protestant circles) virtually (and falsely) equated with the gospel of salvation itself.

Collins objects to the Catechism stating that Mary enjoys “a singular participation in her Son’s resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians” (#966). He states that this is:

. . . an honor that is nowhere found in Scripture and actually undermines some of its basic affirmations: Christ alone is the firstfruits of the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:20, 23), a first that is not shared by or parceled out to another . . . all the just, not simply Mary, will be raised to glory.

This entirely misses the Catholic “point” and is illogical. All we’re saying is that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead and ascended to heaven (so far so good, in terms of agreement). He is the “firstfruits.” No one disagrees. We then add that Mary was also bodily assumed into heaven and received her resurrected body (the first created human being to do so); also that she never experienced bodily decay. Jesus would certainly desire no less for His mother. That’s what the Catechism passage means: not that Mary was literally included in Jesus’ resurrection as the “firstfruits” but rather, that she was the first resurrection after Jesus, of all the millions who will likewise be glorified, not the only one.

“First” means “first” (again, a=a). And “first” implies that there is a second or third, etc. We believe that Mary, the Mother of God was that next resurrection after Christ. And who better to be resurrected first: than Jesus’ own mother, who — with St. Joseph — raised and taught Him for thirty years before He even began His public ministry? Collins agrees with Scripture that “all” [saved persons] will be resurrected and glorified. Therefore, some created human being would be the first one. We think it’s Mary. Protestants either have no opinion about it or don’t care. But our view does not contradict Scripture. In fact, there is another Bible passage I haven’t mentioned yet that does provide some significant evidence of Mary’s preeminence in the general resurrection:

Revelation 12:1-5 (RSV) And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; [2] she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery. [3] And another portent appeared in heaven; behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems upon his heads. [4] His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, that he might devour her child when she brought it forth; [5] she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne,

This clearly has an application to Mary and her child, Jesus, and to her Assumption into heaven, in great glory, and with A crown (as with the Queen Mother). This is indeed a “Queen of Heaven” and it’s Mary. I (like many commentators) also believe that it has a secondary application (a common occurrence in the Bible) to the Church. I’ve written about the passage four times (one / two / three / four), for those who would like to pursue that topic further.

Even Collins admits shortly afterwards, that we don’t know who is in heaven, “With the exception of Mary, of course, whose eternal sanctity for us is beyond question . . . ” He said it himself. This is the person we Catholics believe (we think, with ample reason) was the first to be resurrected in heaven after Jesus.

***

Photo credit: Assumption of Mary (1618), by Peter Paul Rubens (1577-1640) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Blessed Virgin Mary

bodily assumption of Mary

Catholic Mariology

general resurrection

Immaculate Conception

Roman but not Catholic

Previous Post

October 19, 2017

Armstrong vs. Collins & Walls #4: Mary "Not a Genuine Human Being"?

Next Post

October 19, 2017 Armstrong vs. Collins & Walls #7: Unbiblical / Non-Patristic Purgatory?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category & Last Things About Me Anti-Catholicism Atheism & Agnosticism Baptism and Sacramentalism Bible and Tradition Blessed Virgin Mary Books by Dave Armstrong C. S. Lewis Calvinism & General Protestantism Catholic Apologetics Catholic Apologists Catholic conversion Catholic converts Christmas Church (Ecclesiology) Church History Conversion and Converts Development of Doctrine Eastern Orthodoxy Ecumenism & Christian Unity Eucharist & Liturgy Fathers of the Church French Translations G. K. Chesterton Hell Hell & Satan Hell & Satan & Last Things Heresies & Comparative Religion Holistic Health Inquisition & Crusades & Scandals James White Jews & Judaism & Old Testament John Calvin John Henry Newman Liberal / Modernist Theology Life Issues Literary Resume Lutheranism Mariology Martin Luther Music Orthodoxy Papacy & Infallibility Personal Page Philosophy & Science Political & Ethical & Moral Issues Protestant Persecution & Intolerance Protestantism Purgatory Purgatory & Penance Romantic & Imaginative Theology Saints & Purgatory & Penance Salvation Salvation & Justification Satan & Last Things Sexuality and Gender Issues Spanish Translations Traditionalism vs. Radical Catholic Reactionaries Traducciones al español / tradução para português Trinitarianism & Christology Uncategorized Videos

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 April 2010 March 2010 December 2009 October 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 March 2009 February 2009 October 2008 September 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 May 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 October 2005 June 2005 April 2005 February 2005 July 2004 May 2004 April 2004

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz