Peter calls Paul’s writings Scripture, and Paul does the same with the Gospel of Luke. And then, said Ortlund, “From the earliest of times, certain books are consistently called Scripture…and it’s not at all surprising that it would take some time to discern which books are in and which books are out.”
In contrast, the belief in Mary’s assumption doesn’t appear in the church “in any sort of clear or widespread way until at least the 4th century, most scholars say 5th, late 5th century,” he explained.
“There is a difference between something starting in the 4th century (or later) and something ending in the 4th century or later,” Ortlund said. “Furthermore, Mary’s assumption is an alleged historical event. It’s not an idea or a process of discernment that can sort of develop.”
Ortlund believes it is strange that an alleged historical event such as Mary’s assumption would occur, and then “there’s zero attestation of that historical event for around 400 years, except maybe a little earlier than that in some Gnostic contexts.”
“That’s really surprising,” said Ortlund. “But there’s nothing surprising about the process of canonization starting and then just rumbling on for a bit. So those are apples and oranges.”
“We need to reject any sort of all or nothing posture about church history,” Ortlund said as he concluded. “We can believe that God is guiding the church even while we recognize the need to be discerning about particular beliefs that may arise in church history.”
