Saturday, October 13, 2007
Trinity vs. Assumption
This is almost sad in a way. Ryan L. over on the Catholic Answers forum posted the following:
Marian Apologetics - An Easy One
"On James White's blog, protestant Apologist James Swan posted about something from Steve Ray's blog. In effect, it attacked the Marian dogmas en masse. This is a very poor showing of the apologetics being produced from that camp, so I thought it would be a nice article for beginning Catholic apologists to pick apart. I'm going to post the whole article, so I trust that if the mods think it's too long they'll edit it appropriately."
"I would like for folks to start with the logical errors / false argumentation used before moving to the Biblical basis for the dogmas, but please feel free to post as you see fit."
God Bless, Ryan L
Well, so far, this post has been up on the Catholic Answers apologetics forum for a few days, and hasn't gotten any responses. This is fairly odd, because usually the Catholic Answers boards are teeming with responses (the good, the bad, and the ugly). I expected something.
Well for those of you who read my aomin entry about the comparison of the doctrine of the Trinity to some of the Marian dogma's, you may recall I stated:
"For the defenders of Rome to make their parallel between the Trinity and the Marian dogmas, they would have to demonstrate the Marian dogmas are the result of God's people dealing with, and only with, God's Word. Recall a few days ago I mentioned The New Catholic Answer Bible stated, "Is Mary's assumption described in the Bible? No, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen." Here is as blatant a denial of true Biblical doctrinal development as one can find."
This statement and Ryan L.'s post are brought into a state of irony by this recent Catholic Answers post:
Scriptural basis for the Assumption
Gen. 5:24, Heb. 11:5 - Enoch was bodily assumed into heaven without dying. Would God do any less for Mary the Ark of the New Covenant?
2 Kings 2:11-12; 1 Mac 2:58 - Elijah was assumed into heaven in fiery chariot. Jesus would not do any less for His Blessed Mother.
Psalm 132:8 - Arise, O Lord, and go to thy resting place, thou and the Ark (Mary) of thy might. Both Jesus and Mary were taken up to their eternal resting place in heaven.
2 Cor. 12:2 - Paul speaks of a man in Christ who was caught up to the third heaven. Mary was also brought up into heaven by God.
Matt. 27:52-53 - when Jesus died and rose, the bodies of the saints were raised. Nothing in Scripture precludes Mary's assumption into heaven.
1 Thess. 4:17 - we shall be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air and so we shall always be with the Lord.
Rev. 12:1 - we see Mary, the "woman," clothed with the sun. While in Rev. 6:9 we only see the souls of the martyrs in heaven, in Rev. 12:1 we see Mary, both body and soul.
2 Thess. 2:15 - Paul instructs us to hold fast to oral (not just written) tradition. Apostolic tradition says Mary was assumed into heaven. While claiming the bones of the saints was a common practice during these times (and would have been especially important to obtain Mary's bones as she was the Mother of God), Mary's bones were never claimed. This is because they were not available. Mary was taken up body and soul into heaven.
This post on the Assumption proves my point. I would argue Roman Catholics are forced to begin with the Assumption, and then secondarily seek to refer back to Scripture for support or implicit proofs. So if there is any development here, it is backward development. It is taking a developed concept and seeking to read it back into Scripture. The Roman Catholic Marian dogma of the Assumption is not mined from Scripture. The assumption is not the result of God's people delving deeper and deeper into God's Word. It is not the result of using Scripture to interpret Scripture. It is not the result of in-depth exegetical studies. It is an idea found outside of Biblical revelation.