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
Anti-Catholic Argument (!) for Mary’s Assumption

Anti-Catholic Argument (!) for Mary’s Assumption

Last updated on: March 11, 2022 at 11:45 am by Dave Armstrong

Anti-Catholic Argument (!) for Mary’s Assumption 2022-03-11T11:45:57-04:00 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.

Jason Engwer is a Protestant and anti-Catholic apologist, who is the main writer at the Triablogue site. I’ve had many debates with him; well, until he decided to stop interacting, some years ago now. One can see them by searching his name on my Anti-Catholicism web page. His words will be in blue.

*****

Recently, it struck me how Jason loves the argument from silence when it comes to the Church fathers and Mary’s Assumption, but then he doesn’t like it at all with regard to St. Paul hardly mentioning Jesus’ miracles, and never mentioning John the Baptist. Why the difference? I’d like to explore this a bit and make some semi-satirical analogies. Here is Jason decrying the argument from silence when atheists use it against St. Paul:

Skeptics occasionally object to the historicity of Jesus’ miracles on the basis that they aren’t mentioned in Paul’s letters.. . . We have no reason to expect Paul to have mentioned Jesus’ miracles. There are places where he could have mentioned them, but I see no way to argue that he should have brought them up in the manner under consideration. Watch the video clip here for some comments from Tim McGrew on the argument from silence. Jesus’ baptism by John the Baptist is widely accepted as historical, yet Paul not only doesn’t mention it, but also doesn’t even mention John the Baptist (if we define a mentioning of such things the same way critics are defining a mentioning of Jesus’ miracles). And John the Baptist has a large role in the gospels. (Why doesn’t Paul mention Jesus’ miracles?, 3-6-22)

Interesting. I shall now apply this reasoning to Mary, by way of analogy:

Protestants frequently object to the historicity of Mary’s Assumption on the basis that it isn’t mentioned in the earlier Church fathers .. . . We have no reason to expect them to have mentioned her Assumption. There are places where they could have mentioned it, but I see no way to argue that they should have brought it up in the manner under consideration. Watch the video clip here for some comments from Tim McGrew on the argument from silence. Mary’s Assumption is widely accepted by Catholics as historical, yet the earlier Church fathers don’t mention it. And Mary has a large role in salvation history.

In an earlier paper, I also turned Jason’s argument against Mary back upon him, by analogy:

Sola Scriptura

Many patristic sources highly praise Scripture as God’s 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 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. 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 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 as the rule of faith as present-day Protestants do, or even close to so high a view, you’d expect them to cite its definition quite prominently. Instead, they don’t mention it at all.

The New Testament Canon

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, [one can’t grant the Bible alone sole infallible authority unless one knows exactly what it is] and entire basis of its self-understood authority. 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’d expect them to mention this quite prominently. Instead, they don’t mention it at all. And several of these fathers included books in the New Testament canon that no Christian today includes.

[the canon of the New Testament wasn’t finalized until 397 A.D.]

Faith Alone (sola fide)

Even foundational and distinctive Protestant doctrines, such as the notion of Faith Alone or imputed, extrinsic, forensic justification, are well-nigh nonexistent all through Church history until Luther’s arrival on the scene, as, for example, prominent Protestant apologist Norman Geisler recently freely admitted:

[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! (Norman L. Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1995, 503)

There are other examples, too:

Original Sin

Cardinal Newman cited sixteen Church fathers who expressed the doctrine of purgatory in some form, and noted that the doctrine achieved “almost a consensus of the first four ages of the Church.” Yet patristic teaching on original sin is far less apparent, and it didn’t even appear in the Apostles’ Creed or the Nicene Creed.

Deity of Christ and the Holy Trinity

The divinity of Christ was dogmatically proclaimed only at the “late” 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.

Why is it that Protestants have no problem whatever accepting all of the above (including their two famous “pillars”: sola Scriptura and sola fide) even though patristic evidence is remarkably — sometimes literally totally — lacking? Perhaps some Protestant will educate us as to why the glaring double standard and application of “patristic absence” to the Marian doctrines but not to Protestant distinctives. I won’t hold my breath. No one has explained it to me yet in my 31 years since becoming a Catholic.

I provide many articles that deal with the question of the alleged total “absence” of the Assumption of Mary from Holy Scripture, too (see my Blessed Virgin Mary web page and search for “Assumption”). A fairly strong case can be made for it from the Bible alone. In fact, there is more about Mary’s Assumption in Scripture than there is about the biblical canon and the definition and exact nature of sola Scriptura: that is, nothing at all in both cases; zip, zero, zilch.

I don’t think the Assumption is biblically implausible in the least. All it’s saying is that Mary received her resurrected body first among the saints (all of whom will eventually do the same thing). The mother of Jesus our Lord and Savior didn’t have to undergo the decay of death.

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

Photo credit: The Assumption of the Virgin, by Charles Le Brun (1619-1690) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: Jason Engwer argues that an argument from silence doesn’t work with Paul regarding Jesus’ miracles. I apply his same reasoning analogically to Mary’s Assumption.

Anti-Catholicism

Blessed Virgin Mary

Assumption of Mary

bodily assumption of Mary

Mary's bodily assumption

Mary's death

Triablogue

two witnesses of Revelation

Previous Post

March 8, 2022

Pearce Pablum #72: Flood: 25 Criticisms & Non Sequiturs

Next Post

March 16, 2022 Noah's Ark: Josephus, Earlier Historians, & Church Fathers

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