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up front that it is not going to treat the Scriptures as if they are divinely inspired, but merely as legitimate historical documents.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

for 1,600 or so years, Catholicism had no competition.... That'll happen when they use the power of the sward to eradicate the competition.

They didn't have to do that until the pesky revolutionaries sprang up....around 1600.

They did have to take out their swords once before that...when the pesky Muslims were kept, by the Catholic church, from overrunning all of Europe.(Charles Martel, Battle of Tours and others)

[terycarl]

Without her accepting to become the mother of God, 1. She 'accepted' nothing. The angel TOLD her what was going to happen.

Be it done unto me according to thy word....

[terycarl]

Catholics, Muslims, Mormons, and Jehovah’s Witnesses! There’s a trend there it seems.

You are right.....first there were the Catholics, and then came the wannabes, muslims, then protestants, then J.W., and then Mormans....see how easy it is!!

[Mark17]

Nope, if you listened real carefully you would have understood that the act of eating meat on Friday was a pretty neutral act

No, I listened with both ears, and watched with both eyes. They said mortal sin. Maybe they were in error, and maybe they said something different to you, but to me, they said it was a mortal sin, that is why I did not do it. I love to get away with things, but I figured I better eat fish on Friday. I grew to hate perch. I still won't eat it today, but we caught perch all the time in the Minnesota lakes. Caught some nice fish, besides perch, in Lake of the Woods. You should probably know where that lake is. Part of it is in Minnesota, and part of it is in Canada.

[Mark17]

2nd Pet_3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Does that verse remind you of a number of different religious denominations?

[Mark17]

“I trust in the full price paid by the shed blood of Christ and have no defence of my own” is the only answer. Any appeal to personal deeds or obediences will not be heard.

You are correct again sir. Can you imagine anyone having the audacity, to stand before God, and try to tell Him that you led a good life, and tried to do the right thing? He will say, how long did you lead a good life? Were you always successful? Did you ever do anything wrong? Yes? Wrong answer buddy, you belong in the hot place. You are right. The only thing God will accept, is the one who is covered by the blood. He won't care what church you went to, even if you think it is the only true church. He won't care a hill of beans about ANYTHING, not one thing, except if you are covered by the blood. Any other way, ain't gonna cut the mustard.

[boatbums]

If we don't need it, why did He institute it????

Need it??? We ARE it! Do you not comprehend that point?

Kind of like the Eucharist....did He just waste time giving us that magnificent gift???

The "magnificent gift" is eternal life through faith in what Jesus Christ did and IS. That is what the "eucharist" was supposed to remind us of every time we observed it. Don't you read Scripture?

[Elsie]

You just deny the clear words of Scripture

Catholics ADD TO the clear words of Scripture.

[Elsie]

Keep telling the truth bro. 🆒

It's EASY!

All I have to do is cut and paste from Scripture.

Then, when contrary Catholic writings are posted to view, people can accept which ever they wish.

[Elsie]

1 Timothy 3 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

1 A faithful saying: if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.   (What about pope, cardinal, Swiss Guard...)

² It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher, (HMMM...)

³ Not given to wine, no striker, but modest, not quarrelsome, not covetous, but

⁴ One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all chastity.

⁵ But if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?  (Evil pope list time?)

⁶ Not a neophyte: lest being puffed up with pride, he fall into the judgment of the devil.  (At least none of our FR Cathiolics have THIS problem!)

⁷ Moreover he must have a good testimony of them who are without: lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.  (Pope Francis is a GREAT guy!)

⁸ Deacons in like manner chaste, not double tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre:   (O...   K...)

⁹ Holding the mystery of faith in a pure conscience.

¹⁰ And let these also first be proved: and so let them minister, having no crime.   (Unless yer a POPE.  History shows that they CAN GET AWAY WITH murder!)

¹¹ The women in like manner chaste, not slanderers, but sober, faithful in all things.

¹² Let deacons be the husbands of one wife: who rule well their children, and their own houses.   (No pope need apply)

¹³ For they that have ministered well, shall purchase to themselves a good degree, and much confidence in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.   (NO!!! Faith in the CHURCH!! and Mary; too!)

¹⁴ These things I write to thee, hoping that I shall come to thee shortly.

¹⁵ But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

¹⁶ And evidently great is the mystery of godliness, which was manifested in the flesh, was justified in the spirit, appeared unto angels, hath been preached unto the Gentiles, is believed in the world, is taken up in glory.

 

 

 

...which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.    Parse correctly and one sees that GOD is the pillar.  Some folks claim that the CHURCH is the pillar. 

 

 

[Elsie]

It must be tuff for some people which one to chose...

 

If you have cable TV, there won’t be much on to watch.

 

 

 

 

If there isn’t much on to watch, you will answer your door whenever someone rings.

 

 

 

 

If you open your door, you will see mormons.

 

 

 

 

If you talk to mormons, they will trick you into “praying about whether something is true”.

 

 

 

 

If you rely on your feelings, you may become a mormon.

 

 

 

 

If you become a mormon, you will have to wear magic underwear!

 

 

 

 

If you wear magic underwear, people will immediately label you as a cultist.

DON’T be a cultist!
Get DirectTV.

[Elsie]

I don’t play what if questions.

There are plenty of rabbit trails now.

[Elsie]

I said a path to heaven. Try re-reading my post.

I'll not only re-read it; I'll re-POST it for you!

In the days of the Holy Family, after the word "hail" is used, a person's title is given. The angel Gabriel gave Mary the title of "full of grace." On a side note: the original greek "εχαριτωμένη" is a little more fuller in that it means "one whose grace has no bounds." Mary, as one without sin and having grace abound, is certainly a path to heaven. For if we become sinless and have God's grace enter us (no mortal sins), salvation is assured. Mary is also necessary for salvation. As a human, she certainly had the gift of freewill. Without her accepting to become the mother of God, we would not have the opportunity to enter heaven. For questions about Mary's intercession, consider Mary's intercession to Jesus at the wedding at Cana. I also find it interesting that you do not list the angel Gabriel as an idolator because of his "Hail" to Mary. !

Yup; that's what you posted all right!

[Elsie]

Protesters, keep on Protesting.

Spinners; keep on spinning.

Leading a sinless life, like Mary did, is following Jesus.

More blather from Rome.

---

Sinless Mary??

 

 

Luke 2:22-24

 

When the time came for the purification rites required by the Law of Moses, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord  (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord”),  and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: “a pair of doves or two young pigeons.”

 

Leviticus 12:7-8

 

Then he shall offer it before the LORD and make atonement for her, and she shall be cleansed from the flow of her blood. This is the law for her who bears a child, whether a male or a female.
'But if she cannot afford a lamb, then she shall take two turtledoves or two young pigeons, the one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for her, and she will be clean.'"

[Elsie]

blessed art thou among women.” Luke 1:28

Not ABOVE all women...

[Elsie]

What part of

the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.” 1Tim 3:15

Don't you understand?

[Elsie]

One cannot have this title and sin. Ever. It is why Mary does not have Original Sin.

Says who?

Rome.

Not found in Scripture.

No WONDER you guys don't like scripture ONLY folks!

[Elsie]

Luke Chapter 1 (various)

⁵ There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.

⁶ And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

 

⁴¹ And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:

⁶⁷ And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying,

 

⁴⁵ And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord.

 

 

---

---

Elisabeth and Zacharias were both righteous, AND filled with the Holy Ghost:   This was NOT recorded about Mary.

 

Mary was blessed because of BELIEF; not Obedience.

 

 

[Elsie]

Read this again will you.

AGAIN?

There is no evidence shown that it was read at all.

[Elsie]

Are you ignorant or insolent?

Do we HAVE to choose?