Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
History and Religion
Jason Engwer’s Anti-Papalism Refutes Denominationalism

Jason Engwer’s Anti-Papalism Refutes Denominationalism

Last updated on: June 6, 2026 at 12:46 am by Dave Armstrong

Jason Engwer’s Anti-Papalism Refutes Denominationalism 2026-06-06T00:46:58-04:00 Dave Armstrong

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

[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.

***

Reply to Two Confessions: On the Church & Private Judgment (Reformed Belgic Confession [1561] and Second Helvetic Confession [1566]) [June 2002]

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]

Bible on Submission to Church & Apostolic Tradition / Biblical Condemnation of the Rebellious & Schismatic Aspects of the Protestant Revolt [8-27-11]

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.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

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.

Anti-Catholicism

Calvinism & General Protestantism

Protestant denominations

Previous Post

August 1, 2022

No Papacy in the NT? Think Again (vs. Jason Engwer)

Next Post

August 3, 2022 St. Augustine, St. Basil the Great, & Veneration of Images

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category & Last Things About Me Anti-Catholicism Atheism & Agnosticism Baptism and Sacramentalism Bible and Tradition Blessed Virgin Mary Books by Dave Armstrong C. S. Lewis Calvinism & General Protestantism Catholic Apologetics Catholic Apologists Catholic conversion Catholic converts Christmas Church (Ecclesiology) Church History Conversion and Converts Development of Doctrine Eastern Orthodoxy Ecumenism & Christian Unity Eucharist & Liturgy Fathers of the Church French Translations G. K. Chesterton Hell Hell & Satan Hell & Satan & Last Things Heresies & Comparative Religion Holistic Health Inquisition & Crusades & Scandals James White Jews & Judaism & Old Testament John Calvin John Henry Newman Liberal / Modernist Theology Life Issues Literary Resume Lutheranism Mariology Martin Luther Music Orthodoxy Papacy & Infallibility Personal Page Philosophy & Science Political & Ethical & Moral Issues Protestant Persecution & Intolerance Protestantism Purgatory Purgatory & Penance Romantic & Imaginative Theology Saints & Purgatory & Penance Salvation Salvation & Justification Satan & Last Things Sexuality and Gender Issues Spanish Translations Traditionalism vs. Radical Catholic Reactionaries Traducciones al español / tradução para português Trinitarianism & Christology Uncategorized Videos

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 April 2010 March 2010 December 2009 October 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 March 2009 February 2009 October 2008 September 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 May 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 October 2005 June 2005 April 2005 February 2005 July 2004 May 2004 April 2004

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz