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up front that it is not going to treat the Scriptures as if they are divinely inspired, but merely as legitimate historical documents.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.

[boatbums]

Good answer!

[boatbums]

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.

The phrase "sola Scriptura" is not in Scripture. No one is disputing that. But there are many things Christians believe that, though a precise word may not be found, the concept and the clear teaching IS there (i.e.; Trinity). If, as you say, "we" all agree with the authority of Scripture and believe its authority is because it is Divinely-inspired, then please demonstrate anything else which meets or exceeds that same authority of Divine inspiration (God-breathed).

What I see most often here is a misunderstanding of what the term sola Scriptura means. Here's a good definition:

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the "rule of faith" for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition: The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby.

Positively, the doctrine teaches that the Bible is sufficient to function as the sole, infallible rule of faith for the Church. Negatively, it denies the existence of any other rule of faith as being necessary for the man of God. (http://vintage.aomin.org/SANTRAN.html

When we are challenged to show where Jesus ever told his followers to "write a book", we cannot help but be reminded that Jesus referred to THE book quite frequently to dispute against false teaching. We have His example of using the Divinely-inspired writings of the Old Testament as His authority. Why, then, wouldn't Jesus have expected His followers to preserve His teachings and further revelation of the Holy Spirit in writing, too, and that they be used as the rule of the Christian faith? He did say, after all:

Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. (Matt. 24:35)

And Isaiah said before that:

The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God endures forever." (Isa. 40:8)

[boatbums]

>>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.

On the contrary, Christians that have come out of the false gospel religion of Catholicism have a perfectly good concept of what is the truth because God has opened our eyes and hearts to see the difference. What I call pathetic is the inability of some dyed-in-the-wool Roman Catholics who have ABSOLUTELY no concept of the thought that Jesus Christ CAN and IS able to save completely - to the uttermost - those who come to God through Him (Heb. 7:25) and without the Roman Catholic church. That thought seems to petrify them!

[boatbums]

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.

Only for some, that act of "penitence" WAS, in itself, an act of pride. Jesus told His followers:

Whenever you fast, do not put on a gloomy face as the hypocrites do, for they neglect their appearance so that they will be noticed by men when they are fasting. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. "But you, when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face so that your fasting will not be noticed by men, but by your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you. (Matt. 6:16-18)

My Mom's family was from New Orleans. Having to eat seafood on Friday was a TREAT! ☺

[Mark17]

No, no, no, you can’t point to scripture alone for your authority for the Catholic Church. Saying it’s authoritative for one thing but not for another.

Affirmative sir. Some people want it both ways. They think they are allowed to pick and choose. Either all scripture is authoritative, or none of it is. Who gets to choose?

It’s all double speak by Catholics.

Affirmative again sir. It reminds me of something.

Gloom, despsair and agony on me.
Deep dark depression, excessive misery.
If it weren't for DOUBLE SPEAK they'd have no speak at all
Gloom, despair and agony on me.

[Mark17]

122, 123, and 124, GOOD posts, all three. If this was a hockey game, you scored a hat trick. 😄😇😃😃😄n

[metmom]

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.

It clearly didn't work.

[hockeyCEO]

If you want to answer your own questions, this gets pretty pointless.

Again - what did He write down. The question was about Jesus.

I didn’t ask when was the book of Wisdom penned, only that it foretold of the Passion. Read Wisdom 2: 12-20

[metmom]

The phrase "sola Scriptura" is not in Scripture. No one is disputing that. But there are many things Christians believe that, though a precise word may not be found, the concept and the clear teaching IS there (i.e.; Trinity).

Such as......

Show me in the Bible where the word Bible is used. Show me in the Bible where the word Trinity is found.

So then, by that reasoning, (because a specific word or phrase is not found written down in Scripture it's not Scriptural), the Bible must not be “scriptural” and the Holy Trinity must not "scriptural".

Then that must mean that these things are not Scriptural either.

trinity

catholic

pope

eucharist

sacraments

annulment

assumption

immaculate conception

mass

purgatory

magisterium

infallible

confirmation

crucifix

rosary

mortal sin

venial sin

perpetual virginity

apostolic succession

indulgences

hyperdulia

catechism

real presence

transubstantiation

liturgy

free will

holy water

monstrance

sacred tradition

apostolic succession

Benefactress

Mediatrix

Queen of Heaven

Mother of God

beatific vision

[hockeyCEO]

I was saying that you don’t know what you are talking about, which you make even more abundantly clear.

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass transcends time - get it? It goes back to Calvary.

Learn the faith.

[hockeyCEO]

Thanks you. Blackhawks - yes.

Too bad you are a former Catholic.

The priest and nuns were correct, but not complete. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass transcends time. Jesus died only one time. The Mass goes back to to that moment in time of Calvary.

[hockeyCEO]

You actually argue in favor of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass transcending time. Read 1366 and 1367 CCC again:

1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:

[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper “on the night when he was betrayed,” [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.187

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: “The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.” “In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner.”188

[Mark17]

Steak on Friday/// One of my favorites and the rule (just a rule) of abstinance was lifted many years ago.

BTW TC, I forgot to ask. I was told by the priests and nuns, that it was a mortal sin to eat meat on Friday. Now, I understand, when many people are involved, there will be variations in doctrines, but that is what they told me. Malachi 3:6 says I am the Lord, I change not. I know you say it was just a rule, whatever that means, but I was told it was a mortal sin. So, if it was a mortal sin at one time, did God change His mind, so it wan't a mortal sin anymore? Is it just a venial sin now, or no sin at all? I always envied my evangelical friends, who were eating good meat, while I was stuck eating perch. I hated perch.

[metmom]

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass transcends time. Jesus died only one time. The Mass goes back to to that moment in time of Calvary.

Show us where that is found in the Bible that the Catholic church claims it wrote.

Or is that your own personal interpretation of something Catholic?

[Mark17]

Thanks you. Blackhawks - yes

They lost in a shoutout tonight. I never liked the shootout. One of the reasons is, if they don't have shootouts in the play offs, why have it in the regular season? If it still tied after 5 minutes sudden death, give each a point and end it, like the way it used to be. I was able to go ice skating a few months ago at the Mall of Asia. I showed em how it's done. 😇

[metmom]

transcends time

Hmmmm...

I don't see the phrase "transcends time" in there anywhere.

Show us where that exact phrase is found.

Or perhaps it's YOPIOCCC?

[Mark17]

Or is that your own personal interpretation of something Catholic?

LOL, there they go again, interpreting scripture without a priest to tell them what it says. Do you think they will ever learn? 😄😄😃

[hockeyCEO]

Sure:

1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit: ...

transcend: be or go beyond the range or limits of

Jesus died only once. The Eucharist is made present, it transcends time,

[hockeyCEO]

That’s awesome. I’ve pretty much retired. Maybe I’ll get back when the kids are grown. One the bright side, only 1 more visit to the oral surgeon :)

[hockeyCEO]

This argument is off on many levels. Who says “only what Christ said in the gospels is what Christ taught?” That is the argument we Catholic use against being Bible-only.

Don’t confuse worship and prayer. Catholics only worship God. We can worship in the form of prayer, but that would only be to God.

I think you refer to Catholics praying to the Saints or to Mary. In this case, it is to ask them to pray to God for us. It is the same way someone would ask a friend or buddy to ‘put in a good word for me.’

Extrapolate the tradition of men from Scripture? Nonsense. The rest is a rambling, incoherent rant ending with in a self-imposed justification. Rubbish.