Read a damaging admission from Reformed apologist, Tim Enloe.
The next Apologist on the rack here at Cyber Inquisition is Reformed Apologist, Tim Enloe. If you read Mr. Enloe’s comments on various discussion boards, you will quickly appreciate that this young man is no dummy. He’s very smart. Very smart, indeed. Yet, despite his very capable abilities, even the most competent and talented opponents of Catholicism eventually say something which reveals just how deficient their position really is. Take for instance the following comment that Mr. Enloe made on Gary Hoge’s discussion board some time ago:
“Now of course it is also true that sometimes there was a gap of time between the oral giving and the written transmission–as with the several decades that elapsed between Jesus’ ascension and the writing of the Gospels, and then the further decades that elapsed before the New Testament was finished. During such transitional phases, it is obviously the case that sola Scriptura was not functioning–“the Word of God” in such periods would have been partly written and partly orally-proclaimed. So what?”
(http://pub145.ezboard.com/fcatholicoutlookfrm1.showMessage?topicID=317.topic) – 2/10/03 4:50:42 am
Comment: So what? Well, ‘er, Mr. Enloe’s very revealing remark kind of puts the nail in the coffin of the dead letter that is sola Scriptura. If sola Scriptura was not “functioning” during this “transitional phase”, then Mr. Enloe should identify the functioning infallible rule of faith during this “transitional phase”. And while he’s at it, he should substantiate his claim that this infallible rule of faith was merely “transitional” and not “normative” for the Christian Church then, as it might very well be (and is) today. On what basis was this infallible rule of faith replaced with sola Scriptura? Finally, he should also tell us why he thinks that the mere collection of a defined canon obliges one to accept sola Scriptura. After all, sola Scriptura did not just magically appear when the canon of Scripture was accepted.
Sometimes, folks, Catholics don’t need to offer good reasons to become Catholic. We simply let Protestants do it for us. And the smarter the Protestant is, the more damaging his revealing admissions become. Thank you, Mr. Enloe, for your contribution to the cogency of the Catholic confession. Please feel free to continue to offer such honest and incisive commentary in the future. It is of immeasurable value.
The Catholic Legate
April 30, 2003