1 2 3 4

A Rebuttal to Jason Engwer’s Series - Catholic, but not Roman Catholic

By Patrick Morris email

You’re probably thinking, “Isn’t Catholic, but not Roman Catholic about a year old now? - why wait until now to write a rebuttal?” Well, I really don’t have a good excuse. I was given this project almost a year ago, but in between my studies on various apologetics topics, website development, and other hobbies, I’ve let this rebuttal slip through the cracks. In short - I’ve procrastinated. So, all apologies to those who brought this to my attention a long time ago expecting a quick reply.

There is also the redundancy issue. Haven’t we dealt with all these quotes from the Church Father’s before? Haven’t all of the objections to Catholicism’s doctrines based on patristic quotes, from not only the Reformers but from current Protestant apologists as well, been dealt with in lengthy works such as, Not By Scripture Alone, Not By Faith Alone, and Jurgen’s The Faith of the Early Fathers?. Well, yes and no. The quotes that both sides have been using for centuries are old; it’s the objections that are always new.

Catholic, But Not Roman Catholic compiled by Jason Engwer of New Testament Research Ministries is no exception. From the outset, the work is riddled with false representations of Catholic teaching coupled with nebulous definitions of Mr. Engwer’s own position. Though I will deal with the quotations from the Fathers as we go along, to help us get started we need to clear the air in showing how Mr. Engwer’s entire premise is faulty, and how this faulty premise causes his argument to fall apart before he even begins to quote the Fathers.

Mr. Engwer begins this series with a disclaimer, so to speak. Having obviously been irritated by a barrage of emails giving clear refutations of his position, Mr. Engwer has written and posted a section titled: “How to Read the Series” at the beginning of the piece. Instead of just letting the Fathers speak for themselves, Mr. Engwer first sees fit to try to eliminate any argument he deems “unreasonable” from the discussion. He does this in three ways. First, he sets up a false dichotomy between the Catholic and Evangelical views of Church History. Basing any further argument on this faulty premise, he then moves on to arbitrarily determine which quotes from the Fathers are “reasonable” references and which ones are not. Finally, he uses his self-imposed definition of Church History along with a few quotes from the Fathers to justify his contention that his and the Father’s understanding of “Church” differs greatly from Catholicism’s understanding. Let’s see how he does this.

In the first paragraph, Mr. Engwer gives his take on Church History:

Evangelicals and Catholics have radically different views of church history. Evangelicals believe that a revelation was given to us by God through the apostles, and that each generation since that time is responsible for following that revelation. Some people are more faithful than others in doing so. We view the church fathers as people who taught a combination of truth and error that doesn't completely align with any modern belief system. The evangelical view of church history is similar to what we read about in 2 Kings 22:8-13, where the original revelation is what must be followed, even if our forefathers failed to do so. Catholics, on the other hand, believe that there's been one worldwide denomination centered in Rome since the time of the apostles. They believe that the church fathers were members of that denomination, and that all of the teachings of the apostles were passed on in an unbroken succession.

This is just a distinction without a difference. Of course there was a “revelation given to us by God through the apostles, ...that each generation since that time is responsible for following...” That’s not the argument. The argument revolves around how that revelation is transmitted. By introducing phrases like “Catholics, on the other hand, believe that there's been one worldwide denomination centered in Rome,” Mr. Engwer makes it look as if there’s some kind of war going on between a group of believers trying to hold on to an original revelation on one side, and a diabolical group of arrogant men on the other that is attempting to arbitrarily push it’s interpretation of God’s revelation onto these simple believers. This is a nice way to prime your audience - but, as I said before, it’s a false dichotomy. Catholics completely agree that there is an original deposit of faith to hold on to. What Mr. Engwer needs to demonstrate is that the doctrines he holds as an Evangelical are part of that original deposit. That’s the whole point of this series, isn’t it? It isn’t enough for Mr. Engwer to refute the Catholic position - he must also vindicate his own. If he can’t do that by his quotes from the Father’s in this series, then he’s lost the debate; and as we go along in this series, we’re going to see that many doctrines Mr. Engwer holds dear are indefensible from the very testimony of the same Father’s he quotes.

Having already decided for the rest of us what the accurate view of Church History is, Mr. Engwer now uses this presupposition to eliminate any argument that he arbitrarily deems unreasonable:

Here are some examples of unreasonable objections:

...we don't expect as much consistency as the Catholic view of church history would require. Catholics believe that there was one worldwide denomination that taught the same things the apostles taught in an unbroken succession. If church father A denied that Mary was sinless, while church father B said that she was sinless, that's supportive of the evangelical view of church history, not the Roman Catholic view. Quoting what some other church father said isn't enough to validate the Roman Catholic view of church history.

The Catholic view of Church History does not require that every single Church Father must agree on every single topic. The Church didn’t even have total unanimity in the New Testament - The Council of Jerusalem being a prime example (Acts 15). Mr. Engwer should have studied this text more closely before he even started this series. What this example from the New Testament shows us is that the apostles themselves disagreed on certain doctrines. The fact they were all given the “original revelation” is a moot point at this juncture. The Council of Jerusalem was needed to decide, authoritatively, who among the believers was being “more faithful than others,” as Mr. Engwer puts it. What Mr. Engwer misses in this passage is that once the Church came to a decision on a dispute, that was that. This is exactly the model that continues down to this day. Yes, Church Father’s A and B disagreed at times, but once a Council decides on an issue, either Church Father A or B will recant their position; we’ll see this as we go along in this series. Mr. Engwer’s vision of a Church that allows it’s adherents to disagree with Councils and each other after the Church defined a doctrine is simply not the model of the New Testament Church or the Church that followed it.

Here is another argument Mr. Engwer deems “unreasonable.”:

3. Claiming that the church fathers were allowed to disagree with modern Catholic teaching at that time, since no infallible ruling had been made on the issue yet. By that reasoning, we would conclude that Christians could believe anything during the first 300 years of church history, since there was no infallible papal decree or ecumenical council during that time.

Again, Mr. Engwer, I think you forgot about Jerusalem.

If apostolic teaching was being passed down in an unbroken succession, there isn't any reason to expect any bishop, much less a large number of bishops, to be ignorant of it, regardless of whether any allegedly infallible ruling had been passed on the subject. Saying that people had freedom to disagree with the RCC at that time doesn't change the fact that the doctrine is being contradicted, and that it should have been known across the Christian world if it was one of the apostolic teachings being passed down in the presence of many witnesses (2 Timothy 2:2).

Again, the apostles themselves, though possessing the “apostolic teachings,” disagreed amongst themselves. Apostolic doctrine would have certainly “been known across the Christian world” at that time - but that doesn’t mean that the apostles themselves didn’t have their disagreements on doctrine that needed to be discussed and solidified . Seeing that this is the case, what right does Mr. Engwer have to hound the Catholic Church because of a Father, or two, who disagreed with her now defined dogmas?

Lastly, Mr. Engwer claims that since the Fathers disagreed and could still consider themselves part of the Church then Evangelicals can do the same:

Just as the church fathers could disagree with the RCC and with each other on many issues, yet still call themselves and each other "catholic" and part of the "catholic church", evangelicals can do the same.

Though Mr. Engwer’s focus here is on who can and cannot be called “catholic,” what he’s really getting at is that just as the Fathers had disagreements on doctrine and could still consider themselves within the Church, then Evangelicals should be able to do the same. This is not only an extremely anachronistic vision of the early Church, but it is also, I dare say naive, understanding of Mr. Engwer’s own position. Mr. Engwer envisions the early Church as a group of believers who could disagree on the Eucharist, Baptism, Church Government, the Personal Holiness of the Believer as a requisite for Salvation, and a plethora of other issues and still be considered part of the Church. Why? Because this is the only way he can vindicate his own position! He knows all to well that all of the above doctrines are disputed among Evangelicals and so he must make it look like the Early Church operated the same way. Mr. Engwer conveniently leaves out two very important things: First, once the Church gathered in Council to decide on these issues, the debate was over - you either capitulated to it’s decrees, or you were out of communion with the Church, period. Father A and B can no longer disagree. Second, Evangelicals are divided Church against Church on the above issues. Sure, they’ll lock arms and claim, “in non-essentials, liberty,” when a Catholic comes along to point out these differences, but just take a look at the statements they’ve written against each other on their contended issues and ask yourself if these folks really think that they’re all part of the same church. What’s more, the very fact that Mr. Engwer uses the word “church” simply begs the question - which “church” does Mr. Engwer think that is?

When the day is done it’s all about authority. Mr. Engwer and the Evangelicals that stand with him can speak of following an original revelation all they want. “We follow tradition,” they say; that is until they find a tradition they don’t like. Mr. Engwer and his stripe claim that the church has authority; that is until it authoritatively defines something they don’t agree with. Yes, Evangelicals can talk of following Scripture, Authority, and Tradition all day, but until they can demonstrate which of them is “more faithful than others in doing so,” then all their talk is empty. I can demonstrate aptly that it is the Catholic Church that is “more faithful than the others,” and I will use the same Fathers Mr. Engwer quoted to prove it.

The Fathers on Scripture, Tradition and Authority

I’ve chosen to do this rebuttal topic by topic. Doing so will help to clarify the issues and keep us from getting lost on peripheral topics.

The first topic that should be addressed is what is known as the “perspicuity” of scripture. Mr. Engwer appeals to this principle many times in his work. Though Catholics whole-heartedly agree that there are certain senses in which Scripture is perspicuous, we draw the line when individuals begin justifying rebellion against legitimate Church authority, teaching, and practice by basing their conclusions on the “clear” meaning of Scripture. The early church was no stranger to challenges of her authority based on seemingly “clear“ passages of Scripture.

The perspicuity of Scripture is a crucial topic to address when discussing the relationship between Church Authority and Scripture. The denominationalism within Protestantism is simply the logical outcome of this principle. Patrick Madrid addresses this problem succinctly in, Not By Scripture Alone:

Protestantism has long asserted that the Bible is clear on essential issues. But how do they explain the vast divisions that have fractured Protestantism from the start? Lutheran theology is markedly different from, and often directly contradictory with, central doctrines held by the Reformed Protestantism of John Calvin. Baptists will tell you that both of those groups are wrong about a whole raft of key doctrines. Not surprisingly, the succession of Protestant doctrinal disputes continues unabated, each camp wrapping itself in the mantle of “Religious Truth” and claming it has the correct interpretation of Scripture.

(Patrick Madrid, Not By Scripture Alone, pg. 18)

This is a valid point which must be addressed and resolved by Mr. Engwer. Simply claiming the Scripture is perspicuous is not enough; he must also demonstrate which scriptures are clear and which ones are ambiguous, and why we should take his word over someone else who comes to conclusions contrary to Mr. Engwer’s based on this same “perspicuity” of Scripture. If he cannot do this, then the “perspicuity of Scripture” as understood by Mr. Engwer is simply a principle without any teeth.

Let’s move on to the Fathers to see if they really held to the “Evangelical” understanding of the “perspicuity of Scripture.”

Vincent of Lerins AD 434 -

Here someone may ask: since the canon of scriptures is complete, and is in itself adequate, why is there any need to join to its authority the understanding of the church? Because Holy Scripture, on account of its depth, is not accepted in a universal sense. The same statements are interpreted in one way by one person, in another sense by someone else, with the result that there seem to be as many opinions as there are people...Therefore, on account of the number and variety of errors, there is a need for someone to lay down a rule for the interpretation of the prophets and the apostles in such a way that it is directed by the rule of the catholic church.

(As quoted in Not By Scripture Alone, pg. 367)

I hope Mr. Engwer will forgive this “unreasonable objection,” but why was Vincent of Lerins never quoted in his entire series? I think the answer is obvious. If there is any quote that vindicates the Catholic position, this is it. This contemporary of Augustine and John Chrysostom understood the “need for someone to lay down a rule for the interpretation of the prophets and the apostles in such a way that it is directed by the rule of the catholic church.” Simply claiming that Scripture is “clear” is not enough. It’s only logical that without any visible, God-ordained authority to expound, preserve, and interpret the meaning of God’s holy word, chaos will result. It was no different for the heretics of the first five centuries than it has been for the heretics of the last five centuries. The collapse into, “as many opinions as there are people” and the, “number and variety of errors” has always been the result of wrenching Scripture away from it’s valid expositor and interpreter - the Church.

So, quoting such contemporaries of Vincent such as John Chrysostom while leaving out Vincent of Lerins will do Mr. Engwer no good. To my knowledge, Vincent of Lerins was never chided by either Chrysostom or his other contemporaries for the above statement. The conclusion? Chrysostom and many of the other Fathers Mr. Engwer quotes held to the Catholic understanding of Scripture as an entity that must be interpreted in light of what Vincent calls, “the rule of the Catholic Church.”

Ambrose-

Mr. Engwer quotes the following passage from, On The Holy Spirit by Ambrose:

"God, then, is One, without violation of the majesty of the eternal Trinity, as is declared in the instance set before us. And not in that place alone do we see the Trinity expressed in the Name of the Godhead; but both in many places, as we have said also above, and especially in the epistles which the Apostle wrote to the Thessalonians, he most clearly set forth the Godhead and sovereignty of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit....But if you require the plain statement of the words in which Scripture has spoken of the Spirit as Lord, it cannot have escaped you that it is written: 'Now the Lord is the Spirit.' Which the course of the whole passage shows to have been certainly said of the Holy Spirit....So he not only called the Spirit Lord, but also added: 'But where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. So we all with unveiled face, reflecting the glory of the Lord, are formed anew into the same image from glory to glory, as from the Lord the Spirit;' that is, we who have been before converted to the Lord, so as by spiritual understanding to see the glory of the Lord, as it were, in the mirror of the Scriptures, are now being transformed from that glory which converted us to the Lord, to the heavenly glory." -

Ambrose (On the Holy Spirit, 3:14:94, 3:14:101-102)

The only response I can have to this quote is, “Amen.” There are many times that even Catholic apologists will speak of the “plain statements” of Scripture. Does this mean that those same apologists do not believe that the authoritative interpretation of the Church is needed in the midst of controversies? Of course not. Ambrose and the rest of the Fathers were no different. Consider the following quote from Augustine concerning Ambrose:

What remains, then, but that Pelagius should condemn and renounce this error of his; or else be sorry that he has quoted Ambrose in the way he has? Inasmuch, however, as the blessed Ambrose, catholic bishop as he is, has expressed himself in the above-quoted passages in accordance with the catholic faith, it follows that Pelagius, along with his disciple Coelestius, was justly condemned by the authority of the catholic Church for having turned aside from the true way of faith, since he repented not for having bestowed commendation on Ambrose, and for having at the same time entertained opinions in opposition to him.

(Augustine, On the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin, Book II. Chapter 48.)

We can see in this passage that it is not merely the Scriptures that were the final court of appeal in the case of Pelagius, but it was also the “authority of the Catholic Church” that “justly condemned” Pelagius and Celestius. In the midst of this controversy just the mere claim of the clarity of Scripture is not called to fore in the condemnation of Pelagius and his followers. No, the understanding of Ambrose is, “in accordance with the catholic faith,” and that includes his understanding of Scripture. As Ambrose so aptly stated:

Where the Church is, there is the most secure resting-place (or harbour) for thy mind.

(Ambrose, To the Church of Vercelli, Epistle 63).

1 2 3 4