[book and purchase information]
Jason Engwer is a Protestant anti-Catholic apologist. I have offered rebuttals of his arguments since 2000 (while he stopped replying to me years ago and bans me from his website). Presently, I’d like to make an analogical and reductio ad absurdum argument and parody, utilizing his article, “Was The Papacy Established By Christ? (Part 1)” (Tribalblogue, 6-23-06). I will use the structure of his arguments against the papacy, and (changing just a few words) apply the same reasoning to the topic of denominationalism (which he must not have any problem accepting: being a Protestant).
The question for Jason and all Protestants is: why does he (and why do they) adhere to such a thoroughly unbiblical position? The answer is that they must do so, or else they’d have to cease to be Protestants. The stakes are high, in other words. I understand that, as one who undertook the difficult, soul-searching journey from evangelicalism to Catholicism, but in the final analysis, I would say that we must follow biblical truth wherever it leads. The Bible undeniably teaches that there is one unified Church, with one doctrine, not hundreds of mutually contradictory denominational sects.
As for Jason’s arguments against the papacy, I have refuted those over a dozen times (the day before I wrote this, I did so again). See his section on my Anti-Catholicism web page for all those articles. Jason’s words will be in blue.
*****
For those who don’t have much familiarity with the dispute between Protestants and Catholics over the doctrine of the papacy, I want to post two introductory articles on the subject today and tomorrow. The first article, this one, will be about the Biblical evidence, and tomorrow’s article will be about the early post-Biblical evidence.
Roman Catholicism claims the papacy as its foundation. According to the Catholic Church, the doctrine of the papacy was understood and universally accepted as early as the time of Peter: . . .
Some Catholics will argue that the concept of the papacy that was understood and accepted in the earliest generations involved universal jurisdiction, so that the differences between how modern Catholics and the most ancient Catholics viewed Peter and the bishops of Rome would be minor. Other Catholics claim, instead, that the earliest Christians wouldn’t have associated a concept like universal jurisdiction with Peter and the earliest Roman bishops, and they maintain that the modern view of the papacy developed more gradually. Some Catholics even go as far as to claim that there’s no need to show that a concept like universal jurisdiction was intended by Jesus and the apostles. They may argue for the papacy on the basis of philosophical speculation or personal preference, or they may claim that no argument is needed for the doctrine.
Catholics who take that last sort of approach are abandoning the battlefield without admitting defeat. Any belief could be maintained on such a basis. If we’re going to accept the papacy just because it seems to produce more denominational unity than other systems of church government, because our parents were Catholic, or for some other such inconclusive reason, then we have no publicly verifiable case to make for the doctrine. My intention in these posts is to address some of the popular arguments of those who attempt to make a more objective case for the papacy.
Those who argue that a seed form of the papacy existed early on, one that wasn’t initially associated with universal jurisdiction, would need to demonstrate that such a seed form of the doctrine did exist. And they would need to demonstrate that the concept of universal jurisdiction would eventually develop from that seed. It wouldn’t be enough to show that the development of universal jurisdiction is possible. We don’t believe that something is true just because it’s possible. If we’re supposed to accept a papacy with universal jurisdiction on some other basis, such as the alleged authority of the Catholic hierarchy that teaches the concept, then an objective case will have to be made for the supposed authority of that hierarchy.
If there had been a papacy in the first century that was recognized as a distinct office, we would expect it to be mentioned in much the same way that offices such as bishop and deacon are mentioned. We wouldn’t expect Roman Catholics to have to go to passages like Matthew 16 and John 21 to find alleged references to a papacy if such an office of universal jurisdiction existed and was recognized during the New Testament era. Instead, we would expect explicit and frequent references to the office, such as in the pastoral epistles and other passages on church government. . . .
If there was an office that was to have jurisdictional primacy and infallibility throughout church history, an office that could be called the foundation of the church, wouldn’t we expect it to be mentioned explicitly and often? But it isn’t mentioned at all, even when the early sources are discussing Peter or the Roman church. In the New Testament, which covers about the first 60 years of church history (the prophecies in Revelation and elsewhere cover much more), there isn’t a single Roman bishop mentioned or named, nor are there any admonitions to submit to the papacy or any references to appointing Popes, determining whether he’s exercising his infallibility, appealing to him to settle disputes, etc. When speaking about the post-apostolic future, the apostles are concerned with bishops and teachers in general (Acts 20:28-31, 2 Timothy 2:2) and submission to scripture (2 Timothy 3:15-17, 2 Peter 3:1-2, Revelation 22:18-19), but don’t say a word about any papacy. . . .
There is no papacy in the New Testament. It’s not there explicitly or implicitly. This “clear doctrine of Holy Scripture” that the First Vatican Council refers to isn’t even Biblical, much less clearly Biblical. Roman Catholics assume that a papacy is implied in some New Testament passages, but that assumption can’t be proven and is unlikely.
***
For those who don’t have much familiarity with the dispute between Protestants and Catholics over the nature of the Church and denominationalism, I want to post an analogical reductio ad absurdum parody on the subject today. This article will be about the utter lack of Biblical evidence for denominationalism, but there is also a complete absence of post-Biblical evidence for the notion, too.
Protestantism claims denominationalism as one of its inherent, foundational principles. According to Protestantism, denominationalism was understood and universally accepted and practiced as early as the time of Peter: . . .
Some Protestants will argue that the concept of denominationalism that was understood and accepted in the earliest generations was universal in early Christianity. Other Protestants claim, instead, that the earliest Christians wouldn’t have adhered to a concept like universal denominational chaos and relativism, and they maintain that the modern view of denominationalism developed more gradually.
Some Protestants even go as far as to claim that there’s no need to show that a concept like universal denominationalism, with its ecclesiological chaos and doctrinal relativism and uncertainty was intended by Jesus and the apostles. They may argue for denominationalism on the basis of extrabiblical philosophical speculation or personal preference, or they may claim that no argument is needed for the scandalous belief.
Protestants who take that last sort of approach are abandoning the battlefield without admitting defeat. Any unbiblical or self-defeating belief could be maintained on such a basis. If we’re going to accept denominationalism just because it seems to produce more disunity than other far more biblical definitions of the Church, because our parents were Protestant, or for some other such inconclusive reason, then we have no publicly verifiable case to make for the relativistic belief. My intention in these posts is to address some of the popular arguments of those who attempt to make a more objective case for denominationalism.
Those who argue that a seed form of denominationalism existed early on, one that wasn’t initially associated with universal sectarian relativism and chaos, would need to demonstrate that such a seed form of the doctrine did exist. And they would need to demonstrate that the concept of universal denominationalism would eventually develop from that seed. It wouldn’t be enough to show that the development of universal denominationalism is possible.
We don’t believe that something is true just because it’s possible. If we’re supposed to accept a denominationalism with universal scope on some other basis, such as the alleged authority of the hierarchy of Protestant scholars that teach the concept, then there is no necessity for an objective case to be made for the supposed authority of that hierarchy.
If denominationalism had been in existence in the first century, we would expect it to be mentioned in much the same way that offices such as bishop and deacon are mentioned. We wouldn’t expect to have to go to passages like Romans 14 to find alleged references to denominationalism if such universal denominationalism, ecclesiological chaos and doctrinal relativism and uncertainty existed and were recognized and sanctioned during the New Testament era. Instead, we would expect explicit and frequent references to sectarianism, such as in the pastoral epistles and other passages on the nature of the Church.
If denominationalism was to have primacy and universal application throughout church history, a state of affairs that could be called the foundation of the Church, wouldn’t we expect it to be mentioned explicitly and often? But it isn’t mentioned at all, even when the early sources are discussing the Church.
In the New Testament, which covers about the first 60 years of church history (the prophecies in Revelation and elsewhere cover much more), there isn’t a single espousal of denominationalism, nor are there any admonitions to submit to sectarianism and ecclesiological chaos, or any references to doctrinal relativism and an uncertainty, accepted with resignation, with no possibility of theological certainty, or infallibility, or ability to definitively settle disputes, etc. When speaking about the post-apostolic future, the apostles are concerned with “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph 4:5, RSV), but don’t say a word about any denominations. . . .
There is no denominationalism in the New Testament. It’s not there explicitly or implicitly. This “clear doctrine of Holy Scripture” that Protestants universally practice and adhere to isn’t even Biblical, much less clearly Biblical. Protestants assume that denominationalism is implied in some New Testament passages, but that assumption can’t be proven and is unlikely.
***
Related Reading
Denominationalism and Sectarianism: An Anti-Biblical Scandal [1996]
Sacramentarian Controversies (Calvin vs. Luther vs. Zwingli) [3-29-04]
“Absurd” Protestant Divisions: Calvin’s Revealing Lament to Melanchthon [2-6-06]
Philip Melanchthon’s Agony Over Protestant Sectarianism [2-8-06]
Bible vs. Denominationalism and Against “Primary / Secondary” Doctrines [8-18-06]
Melanchthon in 1530 Longed for Return of Catholic Bishops [11-30-07]
John Calvin: Authoritative Council Needed to Unite Protestants [1-18-08]
Unbridled Sectarianism, Sola Scriptura, Luther, & Calvin [6-24-09]
Melanchthon’s Agonized Tears Over Early Protestant Divisions [6-15-11; additions on 10-11-17]
Early Protestant “Unity”: Calvin vs. Westphal vs. Luther [11-6-11]
Church Authority vs. Rampant Sectarianism [9-22-16]
“Reply to Calvin” #4: “Primary” & “Secondary” Doctrines [4-3-17]
Catholicism is True and Denominationalism is Anti-Biblical [National Catholic Register, 6-27-17]
Sectarianism & Denominationalism: Reply to Calvin #6 [12-19-18]
Does Sola Scriptura Create Chaos? (vs. Steve Hays) [5-15-20]
Unbiblical Denominations (vs. Lucas Banzoli) [6-9-22]
***
Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
Summary: I do an analogical parody and reductio ad absurdum of an article by anti-Catholic apologist Jason Engwer in order to show that denominationalism is unbiblical.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In