Jason Engwer is a Calvinist who blogs over at Triablogue. He appears to now be the site’s main blogger, after the passing of Steve Hays. Mr. Engwer thinks he can break through all the misunderstandings about sola scriptura, and he sketches out a brief (the blog post is a mere one paragraph) action plan. Five centuries of schism and discord, and JE comes along on Tuesday, October 5, 2021, and ends it all in a paragraph. Shazaam.
Jason Engwer’s … interesting … plan to “hold critics of sola scriptura accountable.”
BY: Henry Matthew Alt • October 7, 2021 • Apologetics; sola scriptura
If Dr.* White wants to claim that “blueprint for anarchy” is a bad argument, he’ll need to prove why it’s a false argument. Take up Mr. Madrid’s challenge and show us sola scriptura “actually working.” It will not be enough for Dr.* White to merely complain that he doesn’t like those words. Nor can he just scoff at an exaggerated number of denominations as a substitute for addressing the problem of division itself — as though, having proved the number ain’t that high, he can pull the covers over himself and sleep the sleep of the just.
Protestants know that if the Church Fathers did not talk about sola scriptura, then it really would be an invention of the Reformation that was unknown before. Surely, if it were a true doctrine, someone knew about it before the sixteenth century! So they go plowing through volume after volume of the Church Fathers trying to find it by force of divination, which they call sound exegesis. In the earlier parts of his opening statement, Dr.* White has claimed to find it in St. Cyril, in Theodoret, and in St. Augustine. Now he tries to pile on St. Athanasius. St. Athanasius is a real hero of Dr.* White’s.
This is the first of a new series entitled “Bad Apologists Say,” in which I review some remarkably ineffective arguments for the faith, or against others, that Catholics tend to be mysteriously attached to. I begin here with the myth of “33,000 Protestant denominations,” which is usually associated with Steve Ray. If you take a look at the actual source Mr. Ray uses, you will find all sorts of problems, one of which is that it counts only 9,000 denominations, and another of which is that its definition of “denomination” is practically designed to give you inflated numbers. It even includes denominations of groups that can’t even be called Christian in the first place.
TurretinFan is back! We’ve missed him. Longtime readers will remember this crack, Reformed theologian who, because of his anonymity, is known here as Mr. X. I thought his blog was dying a protracted death. There would be long silences; then, he would flicker up again for a post or two; then, slump into another doze. Perhaps he thinks I have forgotten him and he can now resume his raison d’être: plowing wild and unhinged and desperate through the Bible and Church Fathers for evidence of Protestant doctrine.
The short answer to the question is: No. The Church is bound to the Scriptures and to the deposit of faith and its own judgments in the exercise of its teaching authority; it must elucidate Scripture and the deposit of faith and apply them to new questions; no more. That is what Catholic apologists mean when they say that the Church is the servant of the Scriptures and the servant of the deposit of faith. Now. Protestants think in the paradigm of sola; so upon learning that Catholics reject sola scriptura, they conclude they must practice sola ecclesia. But no. 
I have said multiple times on this wery blog that, if one were to piece together a definition of sola scriptura based only upon quotations from the Church Fathers said to support it, you would come up with something no Catholic would disagree with. And you would never think to use the word sola in connection with it. If you go about it this way — if you start with the quotations and work your way to a definition — you would not get sola scriptura. If you worked in reverse, however — if you began with the definition and only then pecked around for quotations — you would be sure to find many words that superficially sound like it.
This is a continuation of a long-dormant series on a 1997 debate on sola scriptura between Dr.* James White and Gerry Matatics. Dr.* White finds two quotations in St. Augustine which he thinks are arguments for sola scriptura, but they amount—like his other quotations from the Church Fathers—to cherry-picking words out of context. Dr.* White’s definition of sola scriptura is very precise, and yet the quotations he chooses don’t come near that precision. It’s like he’s throwing darts and missing not just the target but the whole board. He really needs to do a better job at this. 
