"Pillar and Foundation of our Faith"

[montanaman]

This is a three-book set allegedly proving sola scriptura. Anyone have any experience with it? (Church Militant, I’m looking in your direction…)

christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=4678&netp_id=317941&event=ESRCN&item_code=WW

 

[montanaman]

I note with delicious irony that it takes three VOLUMES to make a single Bible verse mean the opposite of what it says.

 

[E.E.N.S]

I note with delicious irony that it takes three VOLUMES to make a single Bible verse mean the opposite of what it says.

I was thinking the same thing, lol…after all, in Scripture it says “the pillar and foundation of truth is the church…”

 

[Vincent]

I think the author gets his title from St. Irenaeus of Lyons:

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.

(Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 1, 1).

 

[runandsew]

I think the author gets his title from St. Irenaeus of LyonsAgainst Heresies, Book III, Chapter 1, 1).

Oh good, I thought the title was from 1 Timothy 3:15
“the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.”

That makes more sense.

 

[Genesis315]

I think the author gets his title from St. Irenaeus of LyonsAgainst Heresies, Book III, Chapter 1, 1).

Of course, if one reads that passage in the context of that chapter and also the whole work, we can see he is calling the Apostles and their teaching–the entire Gospel message (which is proclaimed to this day by the Church)–the pillar and ground of faith, and not the Scriptures themselves.

We see this most evidently in chapter 3 of the Book III, where, St. Ireneaus says all churches must agree with Rome.

1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to “the perfect” apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority – that is, the faithful everywhere – inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere.

 

[PhilVaz]

Yeah yeah yeah I demolished all three volumes when they first came out 5 years ago…

Ground and Pillar of Whose Faith?

Athanasius on Scripture and Tradition

Webster/King deal with some issues well (the high authority placed on Scripture in the Fathers), but gloss over other issues (the necessity of tradition and the Church in interpreting Scripture, and the Catholic-ness of the Fathers, etc). They ignore all the sections in JND Kelly, Pelikan, Schaff, Congar, etc on the authority and necessity of tradition in the Fathers. For example:

(A) For the early Church the divine Scriptures AND the oral tradition of the apostles or living apostolic Faith of the Catholic Church together formed the one infallible source and rule of faith for the Church; Church Tradition determined the canon of Scripture and furnished the key to the true interpretation of the Scriptures (Schaff);

(B) Throughout the whole period of the Fathers, Scripture AND Tradition ranked as complementary authorities, although overlapping or coincident in content; and if Scripture was “sufficient” in principle, Tradition provided the surest clue to Scripture’s true interpretation, for in Tradition the Church received, as a legacy from the apostles, an unerring grasp of the real meaning of revelation that both Tradition AND Scripture enshrined and bore witness (Kelly);

(C) There was no notion of Sola Scriptura in the ante-Nicene Church, neither was there a notion of Sola Traditio (Tradition alone); the one universal Catholic Church of the Fathers (neither Western/Catholic nor Eastern/Orthodox) was the repository of all revealed truth, the dispenser of all grace, and the only place where the true God accepted true worship, sacrifices, intercessions, good works, etc – only from this Church does the truth shine forth; heretics taught doctrines found neither in Scripture nor Tradition, while orthodox Catholics in the Church of the four Gospels and four Councils were faithful to both Scripture and Tradition (Pelikan).

(A) (B) and (C) utterly demolish their claims on the Fathers, and much of volumes 2 and 3 of Webster/King try to “water down” the conclusions of these Protestant scholars. Volume 1 is a supposed “biblical defense” and King brings up two verses: 2 Timothy 3:15-17 and 2 Peter 1:19-21, with a brief reference to 1 Corinthians 4:6 and discussion of 2 Thess 2:15. Not impressive.

They do answer Sungenis on the supposed unreliability of the manuscripts which is not well argued in Not By Scripture Alone. The Sungenis “percentages” on manuscript “corruption” are bogus in my opinion. But much of the Sungenis book still stands up quite well.

Unfinished critique but good enough. I’m too lazy to complete.

Phil P

 

[Verita]

Of course, if one reads that passage in the context of that chapter and also the whole work, we can see he is calling the Apostles and their teaching–the entire Gospel message (which is proclaimed to this day by the Church)–the pillar and ground of faith, and not the Scriptures themselves.

You don’t even need to go beyond that sentence. The word “Gospel” is clearly the subject to which the phrase “to be the ground and pillar of our faith” refers. The rest is just clarifying what the Gospel is.

 

[allischalmers]

Hi
FYI
One of the writers of these books, William Webster, Is a former Catholtc apologist. He knows the writings of the ECF;s very well.

forever Baptist
allischalmers

 

[jimmy]

One of the writers of these books, William Webster, Is a former Catholtc apologist. He knows the writings of the ECF;s very well.

Him being a former Catholic apologist doesn’t mean he knows the ECF’s very well. It simply does not follow.

 

[PhilVaz]

allis << Hi FYI One of the writers of these books, William Webster, Is a former Catholtc apologist. He knows the writings of the ECF;s very well. >>

No he was never an apologist as far as I know. He was a “drunk” by his own omission who became Protestant in his early twenties. We know he didn’t understand Catholic teaching since in his first book (1990) he says that in the Mass “Jesus dies often.” (Salvation, the Bible, and Roman Catholicism).

Yves Congar writes in “Excursis A: The Sufficiency of Scripture According to the Fathers and Medieval Theologians” the following conclusions and analysis –

“Now, the Fathers and the medieval theologians, whom we have cited: (1) Admit the material sufficiency of Scripture…(2) Ever since they began discussing these matters, consistently affirmed that Scripture by itself cannot adequately present its true meaning; it is only understood correctly in the Church and in its tradition. If there is one position which the Fathers consistently maintained, it is the position that links inseparably Scripture, the Church and Tradition. Far from considering these three realities to be in opposition, they saw them as united and inseparable.” (Congar, p. 116,117)

That is the teaching of the early Fathers, Doctors, and Saints on Scripture, Tradition, and Church authority.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

Sorry, should be “by his own admission.” Webster talks about his conversion to evangelicalism in Roman Catholicism: Evangelical Protestants Analyze What Divides and Unites Us (Moody Press, 1994), chapter by Webster “Did I Really Leave the Holy Catholic Church?” Correct answer: yes he did.

Phil P