Sola Historia?

His by Grace ^ | 2/9/2015 | Timothy G. Enloe

[RnMomof7]

Rebutting the "Historical" Argument for the Roman Catholic Church

By Timothy G. Enloe

---

     Perhaps the most important aspect of the continuing controversies between Protestants and Catholics is the area of epistemology, or how we human beings know things--in this case, how we know divine truth.  The question "How do you know?" is central to the Catholic polemic as it is presented to Protestants by some of the former's ablest contemporary defenders. ¹  Unfortunately, these apologists not only commit a fundamental error in the target they direct this attack against, but they also miss a fatal flaw in their own logic.

     The first mistake lies in the confusion of modern "evangelical" Christianity--almost universally identified by Catholic apologists as "fundamentalism"--with the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century.  Many Catholic apologists have honed to near perfection the technique of blasting to smithereens the anti-creedal, anti-historical, anti-intellectual positions of "Bible-Only" fundamentalists.  By focusing their attention on the "no creed but Christ" foolishness of the latter and wrongly equating it with the classical Protestant formal principle of Sola Scriptura, they attempt to expose what they believe to be a glaring inconsistency in something they rather generically call "the Protestant view". ²  

     After discarding this caricature as hopelessly false, the defenders of Rome then attempt to establish the authority of their Church by building a step-by-step inductive argument, or more simply stated, by gratuitously piling up "historical" facts as if such can stand on their own outside of their basic interpretive framework.   In so doing, they ironically end up exposing a basic  inconsistency in their own apologetic!  This inconsistency appears when the Catholic principle of how humans know divine truth meets its Protestant opponent on the field of historical battle.  Let us try to follow their reasoning.

The Bible--"Just Another Ancient Book"?

          The argument usually begins by admitting up front that it is not going to treat the Scriptures as if they are divinely inspired, but merely as legitimate historical documents.  It then proceeds to build a chain of "purely" historical evidence--passages of Scripture, quotations from early Christians and Councils, etc--which is supposed to show that Christ instituted a Church with certain properties, properties which are today found only in the Roman ecclesiastical hierarchy.  

     In a debate on Sola Scriptura with Patrick Madrid (then of Catholic Answers), James White asked Madrid how he could know that the Roman Church is the one true Church.  Madrid responded as follows:

This is how I know, Mr. White. I can look independent of what I see in Scripture. In fact, I'm not going to even treat Scripture as an inspired document for the moment, just for the sake of argument. I'm going to look at whether or not a man named Jesus Christ lived. Can I prove that historically? Yes. Can I prove that Jesus Christ died and rose from the dead and appeared to many people who as eyewitnesses claimed that He died and rose from the dead? I can prove that. In two minutes I can't prove it for your satisfaction, but I think we would all agree that those things are true. I can demonstrate through non-Christian, unbiased sources, in fact sometimes actually biased against the Christian position, that Jesus Christ instituted a church. We can look at the writings of these early Christians, not only the apostles but also the men and women in the post-apostolic era. I can look at the Scripture and see what, independent of whether or not I believe it is inspired, I can look and see a description of the church that Jesus established. All of you know the verse in Matthew 16 verse 18, "On this rock I will build My church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it." Mr. White and I would argue all night long over what the rock is, but the fact is Jesus established a church. The next point is that as I look at Scripture I see that the church is described as having certain functions, certain attributes, certain characteristics, certain jobs that it has to perform, and I can compare and find out, well, historically, yes, I can show that that was done, through the writing of the Scriptures. So if I believe that Jesus is God, and I believe that His promise is true that He founded a church, then I have to say, this is the next step, I have to say, does that church, is there a church today which fits that description which is doing all the things that Jesus said. If that's true, if I can find that, and I have, by the way, it's the Catholic Church, then I know that what is described here in this book is the same church that I see today. So when that church tells me, Jesus said in Luke 10:16, "He who listens to you listens to Me, he who refuses to hear you refuses to hear Me," when I hear that Church speak I know that it is Jesus speaking through the church.

     Notice that Madrid's argument follows the familiar evidentialist pattern of much of "evangelical" Protestantism, though it is used by him not to establish the authority of the Bible, but of the Roman Church ³ --a fact which reveals that there are two competing ultimate authorities in the debate: Sola Scriptura and the Catholic Magisterium.  It is then marshalled against a caricature of the Protestant position--which, it is said, amounts to believing the Bible is inspired simply "because it says it is". ²   I quote Madrid again, from his essay "Sola Scriptura: A Blueprint for Anarchy":

Another problem for Sola Scriptura is the canon of the New Testament.  "There's no inspired table of contents" in Scripture that tells us which books belong and which ones don't.  That information comes to us from outside Scripture.  Our knowledge of which books comprise the canon of the New Testament must be infallible; if not, there's no way to know for sure if the books we regard as inspired really are inspired.  it must be binding; otherwise folks would be free to have their own customized canon containing those books they take a fancy to and lacking the ones they don't.  And it must be a part of divine revelation; if it's not it's merely a tradition of men, and if that were so, Protestants would be forced into the intolerable position of championing a canon of purely human origin.

    The Catholic doesn't have this problem, claim Madrid and the others, because he has an external authority--the Church--to tell him that the Bible is inspired and which books are contained in it.   Madrid continues:

Sola Scriptura becomes "canon" fodder as soon as the Catholic asks the Protestant to explain how the books of the Bible got into the Bible.  Under the Sola Scriptura rubric, Scripture exists in an absolute epistemological vaccuum, since it and the veracity of its contents "dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church." [quoting the Westminster Confession of Faith].  If that's true, how then can anyone know with certitude what belongs in Scripture in the first place?  The answer is, you can't.  Without recognizing the trustworthiness of the Magisterium, endowed with Christ's own teaching authority (c.f., Matt. 16:18-19; 18:18; Luke 10:16) guided by the Holy Spirit (John 14:25-26; 16:13), and the living apostolic Tradition of the Church (1 Cor. 11:1; 2 Thess. 2:15, 2 Timothy 2:2), there is no way to know for certain which books belong in Scripture and which do not.  As soon as Protestants begin to appeal to the canons drawn up by this or that Father, or this or that council, they immediately concede defeat, since they are forced to appeal to the very "testimony of man and Church" that they claim not to need.

     The problem with this line of reasoning should be manifestly obvious.  Notice the numerous Scriptural references Madrid cites as part of his proof that we need the Church to tell us what the Scriptures are.  Since he has already told us that no one (particularly Protestants, of course) can know the Scriptures apart from the witness of the Church, how then can he cite these passages of Scripture as part of his "proof" for how he knows those Scriptures in the first place?

     The problem is particularly acute when we examine the central passage of Scripture Madrid cited--Matthew 16:18-19.  These verses supposedly imply that the Church will be infallible (so that the gates of Hades will not prevail against it).  But on the Catholic premise that the infallible witness of the institutional body of bishops is necessary in order for one to "know for sure" that the book of Matthew is legitimate while, say, the Gospel of Thomas is not, how can the book of Matthew be used as part of a "proof" of the existence of that infallible body of bishops?   Thus, the Roman apologist uses Scripture to support his claims about the infallible Church and then inconsistently asserts that no one can know what Scripture is until the infallible Church tells him so!  

     These facts show us that despite the assertion that the authority of the Roman Church can be "proven" by the use of the New Testament records "merely" as legitimate historical records, exactly the opposite is occurring.  Madrid and all Catholic apologists who use this type of argument are tacitly assuming from the get-go that they "know for sure" what books are trustworthy historical records, nay, even infallible historical records!   On what basis do they reject the numerous heretical writings, many of which also claim to be presenting the "catholic" (universal) faith? 

Those Marvelous, Unbiased, Infallible Catholic Historians

     But the problems don't stop with this disingenous use of Scripture.⁴  Catholic apologists treat all of Church history with the same question-begging, "neutral" evidentialism.  I will not even attempt to get into detailed refutations of Catholic historical points as historical points.  Such is beyond the limited scope of this essay, and at any rate, has been done by others far better than I ever could. ⁵   My focus is on the inconsistent epistemology that is used by the Catholic apologists.

     If we were to take the principle that such apologists apply exclusively against Sola Scriptura and make it into a general principle, it would be this: infallible external confirmation is a prerequisite for any claim to "know for sure" that a chosen ultimate authority is the correct one.  Very well.  If this principle is true, we should rightly expect Catholics to jump at the chance to show us such an infallible external proof for their Church, especially if they are going to parade through the town square proclaiming that Sola Scriptura is invalid because it has no infallible external proof.  It seems obvious that if the identity and supreme authority of Scripture must be "proven" by means of an infallible external authority, then so must the identity and supreme authority of "the Catholic Church".

     Oddly, this challenge goes unanswered.  Though Catholic apologists often like to point out that even heretics quote the Bible in support of their errors, I have yet to find even one Catholic apologist who honestly attempts to grapple with the fact that many heretics (both past and present) also claim to be "the Catholic Church". ⁶   With tongue in cheek, I must ask these apologists how they can "know for sure" that the particular organization they are defending is the real "Catholic Church".   How do they "know for sure" that the Protestant Reformers--or for that matter, the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses--weren't right after all?  

     Never ones to follow the supposedly Mormon-esque "I know its true because I feel it in my heart" tactic they wrongly attribute to classical Protestants, these heroically "objective" warriors tell us they have an answer to our query.  They ask us to wait patiently while they zealously weld into place beam after beam of historical data, following a blueprint only they can see.  Soon, they point proudly to the veritable skyscraper they have built, and note with triumph that its shadow overwhelms the pitiful shack of Protestant "novelties" that were seemingly spun from whole cloth barely five centuries ago.

     Unfortunately for them, this massive edifice of historical trivia turns out to be utterly useless as a "proof".  This is so because the very apologists who are compiling the evidence are not themselves infallible, and so, on their own criterion of knowledge, they cannot really "know for sure" that they are dealing with history fairly.  How do they "know for sure" that they have not left some relevant historical facts out of the picture, or allowed their own peculiar biases to warp their reading of history, or perhaps even that the "historical" sources they are drawing upon are not clever frauds which have simply not been detected yet? ⁷ 

     All these questions reveal that the use of historical evidences as a ground of faith in the trustworthiness of the Roman institution is a well-meaning, but nevertheless misguided tactic.  Such evidences do have their place--as warrants, or supports, of the trust these Catholics already had in their Church (although they can still be challenged by Protestants).  But if, as the Roman defenders tell us, the warrants for our faith must be infallible, these warrants can never serve as the foundations, since they, like the apologists who adduce them, are fallible.  

     If one still doubts the validity of my reasoning here, just ask why, if the historical skyscraper produced by Catholic apologists is really so incredible, really so "obvious", why does it not convince Protestants like James White, who is at least as well-informed about Church history as Patrick Madrid?  And why can a James White or a William Webster produce similar skyscrapers that appear "obvious" to Protestants but not to Catholics?  One begins to suspect that it is just not enough to say one's faith is true because it is "historical". 

          

Conclusion

     The claim that the identity and supreme authority of the Roman Catholic institutional Church can be established to be true solely by the use of non-inspired historical writings (which include those writings known as "the Bible") is false for two reasons.

     First, it tacitly assumes the very thing that it is supposed to be proving.  Both Catholics and Protestants take the Scriptures as reliable sources of information about God even if any given individuals in either camp cannot produce external supports for it.  Protestants at least admit that this is what they are doing.  Catholics, on the other hand (particularly the apologists), propose to treat Scripture "only as a historical document", which they then use to build up the authority of their Church.  But in so doing, they ignore the fact that they are assuming that they "know" what books constitute "Scripture"--the very thing they deny that can be done apart from their Church!  

     Second, the claim that the identity and supreme authority of the Roman Catholic institutional Church can be established to be true solely by the use of non-inspired historical writings neglects to factor into its equation the fact that historical arguments are by their nature fallible, since they are constructed by fallible people who can never know all the facts and their inter-relationships with perfect clarity.

          Thus, the apologetic tactic used by many Roman Catholic apologists today actually undermines the very "certainty of faith" it is supposed to safeguard.   The Catholic tells the Protestant that he cannot know that Scripture is trustworthy since he doesn't have an infallible Church to vouchsafe the canon to him--that he has only a "fallible collection of infallible books".   But the Protestant need not be nervous about admitting the truth of the last phrase, for he is still in a better epistemological position!  He can simply reverse the argument and point out that the Catholic cannot know that Rome is the true Church, since all he has is "a fallible collection of (possibly false) historical trivia".     

     Hence, like the fundamentalists they so vehemently oppose, the argument of today's Catholic apologists rests in what one of their number, Patrick Madrid, termed "an absolute epistemological vaccuum".  The irony is too delicious to ignore.

[terycarl]

What with the way Catholicism has changed and morphed over the centuries, there is simply no credibility to the claim that Catholics make that the church is infallible. It simply cannot be trusted to be consistent.

Oh good grief, fallen away Catholics have ABSOLUTELY no concept of Catholicism which is probably why they are fallen away.....pathetic.

[Petrosius]

Dear, dear CynicalBear,

We all agree with the authority of scripture. What is in dispute is your claim of sola scriptura. All of your post point to the authority of scripture but not to the sola part of your claim. All your circumlocutions do is highlight that nowhere in scripture does it claim to be the sole authority. If there were a passage in scripture that unambiguously made such a claim you and others would be posting it in letters three miles high. You cannot do so because such a passage simply does not exist.

[Mark17]

Just because you don't obey the speed limit doesn't mean that it no longer exists...it does.

I know, but I hated going to mass. I was an alter boy, until they kicked me out because I did not feel like learning Latin. I thought I didn't want to say a bunch of meaningless words, in a language I did not understand. I would much rather have watched football, or go play hockey. I hated confessing my sins to some dude who was a sinner himself. Now, I also have a nice steak, or some good roast beef on Friday. Mmmm, good meat. Love it. I think I will do it again this Friday. 😄😇😃 It sure is fun, knowing I don't have to do these dead works anymore.

Maybe I will see you at the pearly gates.

[CynicalBear]

No, no, no, you can’t point to scripture alone for you authority for the Catholic Church. Saying it’s authoritative for one thing but not for another. And still you can’t show where what the apostles called “tradition” is exactly what is taught as “tradition” in the Catholic Church. It’s all double speak by Catholics.

[Salvation]

 

John, chapter 21

 

 

Conclusion. 24It is this disciple who testifies to these things and has written them,^* and we know that his testimony is true.ⁿ 25There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.^o

 

 

 

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

3 John, chapter 1

 

 

13I have much to write to you, but I do not wish to write with pen and ink.^h 14Instead, I hope to see you soon, when we can talk face to face. 15Peace be with you. The friends greet you; greet the friends^* there each by name.ⁱ

 

For Advent: Two Canons: Scripture & Tradition
Father John Behr on Tradition
Pope: The Unbreakable Unity between Scripture and Tradition
Does Jesus Condemn Tradition?
"Tradition" Is Not a Dirty Word
Essays for Lent: Tradition

Prayer and monasticism in Orthodox tradition (Prayer and silence)
The Tradition of Midnight Mass: History
The Tradition of Midnight Mass: History
Charles Borromeo and Catholic Tradition, re: Catholic Architecture [Catholic Caucus]
Revelation, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium
Tradition and Progress Not Opposed, Pope Tells Liturgy Conference
Rome's Station Churches Revive Ancient Tradition
Antioch Tradition Adorns the Church, Says Pope
CARA Reports on Religious Life Confirm Tradition [Catholic Caucus]
Apostolic Tradition [Church Fathers contra Sola Scriptura]
"Little Lost Lambeth," What Christian Tradition, Lambeth Conference & Aldous Huxley have in common

[daniel1212]

I’ve seen this same question from you answered at least twice before on other threads.

Where is Sola Scriptura in Scripture? Cite Chapter and verse. And where did Jesus tell anyone to write anything?

Your position is based upon fallacious premises, that only what Christ said in the gospels is what Christ taught, and SS requires explicit statements such as "Scripture alone is sufficient rule of faith in its formal and material aspects," which is no more tenable than requiring such for all doctrines.

Meanwhile RCs even argue Scripture teaches such a thing as praying to created beings in Heaven, without even one example of this common Cath. practice among the over 200 prayers the Holy Spirit inspired in Scripture, and in instructions on who to pray to in Heaven, and on who has power and position to hear and respond to all the prayers from earth in Heaven.

As they imagine they can extrapolate that tradition of men, among many other things , out of Scripture, then their objection to Scripture being the sufficient rule of faith based upon it clearly being manifest as the supreme standard for obedience and testing Truth claims, and which in principle provided for more being added, and for recognition of a canon, and formally and materially providing for what is necessary for salvation and growth (including the magisterial office, etc.), is hardly warranted.

Rather than going thru all this again, here is a recent response by God's grace to a typical polemic on this by Staples.

[terycarl]

You can’t use that. That’s Sola Scriptura unless you have some other authority.

No it's not, it is simply a (semi) quote from the Bible....like THIS IS MY BODY...which we also believe. That, however does in no way indicate that ONLY quotes from the Bible can be considered.

[terycarl]

History is written by those who eliminated their competition, sort of like the Cosa Nostra.

for 1,600 or so years, Catholicism had no competition....it was the revolutionaries that decided that they knew better than did the Catholics

[daniel1212]

Mary NEVER appears in Scripture after she is given to John.

Actually one last mention is made of her in Acts 1:14.

Why do you believe all the crazy stuff Rome has made up about her?

Because Scripture is not their master, though they are not bound by its censure not to think of mortals above what is written,. (1Co. 4:6), and thus it is impossible to praise her to excess, and go over the invisible line that separates the extreme adulation of the false Mary of Catholicism (versus the humble holy Mary of Scripture) as an almost almighty demigoddess and that of worship of God, though they can look and sound

the same.

As often said, one would have a hard time in Bible times explaining kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, and as having Divine powers and glory, and making offerings and beseeching such for Heavenly help, directly accessed by mental prayer.

Moses, put down those rocks! I was only engaging in hyper dulia, not adoring her. Can't you tell the difference?

[CynicalBear]

so you pick what you want and make up the rest like the Muslims and Mormons! That’s cool!!

[Petrosius]

Just because Catholics do not ascribe to sola scriptura does not mean that we cannot also appeal to scripture. We believe in scripture, just not the sola part. Nor was I pointing to scripture alone for the authority of the Church but rather pointing out that scripture alone does not support scripture alone. You are the one claiming sola scripture but you cannot point to scripture to support that claim.

[daniel1212]

That, however does in no way indicate that ONLY quotes from the Bible can be considered.

Which is simply not what SS holds, nor me. See here .

[CynicalBear]

>>We believe in scripture<<

Only when it suits you. Then you add stuff like the Muslims and the Mormons. The Catholic Church claims they teach the same "traditions" that the apostles taught but they can't prove it. So you're left with taking some guys word for it just like the Muslims and the Mormons.

>>Nor was I pointing to scripture alone for the authority of the Church<<

So where else to they get it from? Just because they said so?

>>You are the one claiming sola scripture but you cannot point to scripture to support that claim.<<

Catholics can't show any other source for what the apostles taught so that's all that's left. Catholics claim they taught other things but can't prove it.

[terycarl]

I know, but I hated going to mass. I was an alter boy,

I thought I didn't want to say a bunch of meaningless words, in a language I did not understand. Now, I also have a nice steak, or some good roast beef on Friday. Mmmm, good meat. Love it. I think I will do it again this Friday.

First, be VERY careful of calling yourself an "ALTER BOY"...that would call into question your gender identity...it is altar boy that I assume that you meant.You have the benefit of the doubt on that one :)

Meaningless words that you did not understand.....Hmmmmm, the original Bible was written in Greek or Hebrew, or Aramaic and later translated into Latin in the Vulgate....but oh well, just a lot of mumbo jumbo and you were VERY immature at the time...

Steak on Friday/// One of my favorites and the rule (just a rule) of abstinance was lifted many years ago. It was just to instill, in faithful Catholics, a slight sense of a penitential act to maybe help remove the overwhelming sin of pride that so many exhibit.....just saying.

[redleghunter]

But where did Christ tell anyone to write anything down?

Well I have to ask. Do you believe the Holy Spirit inspired the NT authors to write the gospels and epistles? And if you do believe such then do you see the purpose.

However I already pointed out the regard Jesus Christ had for the written Word. He used it to rebuke Satan. He used the written word to instruct the disciples on His righteousness. Jesus also said:

Matthew 24:35King James Version (KJV)

35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

You know what, Jesus was right. His Words did not and shall not pass away. Why? The were written down.

Also, another poster already pointed out to you the Risen and Glorified Christ instructed John to write down the letters to the 7 churches.

Revelation 1:

10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,

11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

So there's that. First rule of holes…stop digging. Next you will be saying Jesus could not read. Hope you don't go there.

[ealgeone]

John 20:31 (NASB)
but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.

[xone]

LOL, Nice.

[boatbums]

Even without accepting them as divinely inspired and thus infallible we can see a church established by Jesus with an authority given to the Apostles who latter associated other men in its leadership. We can also see that they preached that Jesus was the Son of God who rose from the dead which they claimed to have witnessed. We also know that they gave their lives for their preaching. We can also compare what they proclaimed with what was written in the Old Testament. All this can be established before declaring that their writings are divinely inspired and thus infallible. It is from this that we can accept the truthfulness of their testimony. Their testimony being truthful then they did indeed witness Jesus rising from the dead. From this we can have faith that Jesus is the Son of God. If he is the Son of God then the church has the divine authority that he gave to it. And then it is by this divine authority that we can accept what the church proclaims to be Sacred Scripture. Nothing in this is begging the question as the author claims.

Sure it is begging the question! The Apostles were given authority in word and in power by Jesus Christ. Paul declared to the Thessalonians:

For our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction; just as you know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake. (I Thess. 1:4,5)

And to the Corinthians, he said:

We put no stumbling block in anyone’s path, so that our ministry will not be discredited. Rather, as servants of God we commend ourselves in every way: in great endurance; in troubles, hardships and distresses; in beatings, imprisonments and riots; in hard work, sleepless nights and hunger; in purity, understanding, patience and kindness; in the Holy Spirit and in sincere love; in truthful speech and in the power of God; with weapons of righteousness in the right hand and in the left; through glory and dishonor, bad report and good report; genuine, yet regarded as impostors; known, yet regarded as unknown; dying, and yet we live on; beaten, and yet not killed; sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; poor, yet making many rich; having nothing, and yet possessing everything. (2 Cor. 6:3-10)

The writings handed down to the churches BY the Apostles were authoritative because they were from GOD. The believers were remanded to OBEY the instructions given to them in writing (see 2 Thess. 3:14; Romans 16:17; Colossians 4:16; 2 Thess. 3:6; Titus 2:8; 2 John 1:10). They did not, however, have to first wait around for their church "leaders" to decide whether or not to accept the Apostolic writings as from God before they obeyed. This is why it is error to presume the church, Catholic or otherwise, had God-given authority to define Divinely-inspired writings. They received them and obeyed because they knew from whom they received them. Just as the Jewish people were held to obey all that the Lord gave to them through Moses and the prophets or suffer His judgment.

This is why we know that Holy Scripture IS the objective authority for our faith - NOT the "church". The church - as the body of Christ - is to be in submission to God's sacred word. The way we can distinguish a genuine church from one that is not is from Scripture. Scripture tells us what a true church of Christ teaches, how it behaves, what it is commissioned to do, what results are expected as well as what Gospel it preaches. Scripture is the standard by which truth claims are measured - and that was how the early church leaders saw it. Some went so far as to say their words should be disregarded if what they taught could not be shown from Holy Scripture. That is a far cry from what the Roman Catholic church teaches today. According to Rome, the fact that they SAY something is true, is all the authority anyone needs. Truth becomes whatever they say it is rather than what God has said (see Rome's New and Novel Concept of Tradition Living Tradition (Viva Voce - Whatever We Say)). This was NOT how the early church behaved.

[redleghunter]

Really? What did He write down?

I am sure you are a Trinitarian. I am too. So is the Son of God Who is the Alpha and Omega, YHWH? If you come to that conclusion and confirm the Deity of Jesus Christ, then you know He did a lot of commanding to write things down well before His incarnation.

On the book of Wisdom? When was it "penned?"

From the USCCB:

The Book of Wisdom was written about fifty years before the coming of Christ. Its author, whose name is not known to us, was probably a member of the Jewish community at Alexandria, in Egypt. He wrote in Greek, in a style patterned on that of Hebrew verse. At times he speaks in the person of Solomon, placing his teachings on the lips of the wise king of Hebrew tradition in order to emphasize their value. His profound knowledge of the earlier Old Testament writings is reflected in almost every line of the book, and marks him, like Ben Sira, as an outstanding representative of religious devotion and learning among the sages of postexilic Judaism.

The primary purpose of the author was the edification of his co-religionists in a time when they had experienced suffering and oppression, in part at least at the hands of apostate fellow Jews. To convey his message he made use of the most popular religious themes of his time, namely the splendor and worth of divine wisdom (6:22–11:1), the glorious events of the exodus (11:2–16; 12:23–27; 15:18–19:22), God’s mercy (11:17–12:22), the folly of idolatry (13:1–15:17), and the manner in which God’s justice operates in rewarding or punishing the individual (1:1–6:21). The first ten chapters in particular provide background for the teaching of Jesus and for some New Testament theology about Jesus. Many passages from this section of the book, notably 3:1–8, are used by the church in the liturgy.

The USCCB admits Solomon was not the author. Dated 50 years before the First Advent of Christ.

http://www.usccb.org/bible/scripture.cfm?bk=Wisdom&ch=

Wisdom 2:

[b]Let us lie in wait for the righteous one, because he is annoying to us; he opposes our actions, Reproaches us for transgressions of the law[c] and charges us with violations of our training.(G) 13 He professes to have knowledge of God and styles himself a child of the Lord.(H) 14 To us he is the censure of our thoughts; merely to see him is a hardship for us,(I) 15 Because his life is not like that of others, and different are his ways. 16 He judges us debased; he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure. He calls blest the destiny of the righteous and boasts that God is his Father.(J) 17 Let us see whether his words be true; let us find out what will happen to him in the end.(K) 18 For if the righteous one is the son of God, God will help him and deliver him from the hand of his foes.(L) 19 With violence and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience. 20 Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him.”(M)

I left the footnote references in. By the admission of the USCCB own introduction, Wisdom is a running summary of scripture already in existence at the time. Here are some footnotes from the NABRE study Bible:

From 2:12 to 5:23 the author draws heavily on Is 52–62, setting forth his teaching in a series of characters or types taken from Isaiah and embellished with additional details from other texts. The description of the “righteous one” in 2:12–20 seems to undergird the New Testament passion narrative.

Studied Wisdom in Catholic HS and at a Jesuit university. The book is excellent commentary on scriptures.

[Mark17]

First, be VERY careful of calling yourself an "ALTER BOY"...that would call into question your gender identity...it is altar boy that I assume that you meant.You have the benefit of the doubt on that one :)

LOL. You got me on that one. A spelling error, but it doesn't "alter" the truth. I did not like speaking Latin, and I hated Latin in High School too. Those nuns that taught Latin, couldn't speak it either. I just wanted to play hockey, because I enjoyed smashing into people. Made me feel good. After I left the Catholic Church, I lost that aggressiveness and took up snow skiing. I gave up the dead works. You can do dead works if you want, I choose not to. 😄😇😃😀😊