OK, I’ll post this again, here is why Webster/King are wrong on the Fathers:
(A) The true Catholic Faith and true interpretation of the Scriptures is found only in the Church which is bound up with the succession of its ministers (apostolic succession, not of doctrine only – as wrongly claimed by Webster/King – but of its bishops, ministers, pastors succeeding the authority of the apostles);
(B) The “rule of faith” or “rule of truth” was not the whole of Tradition; it may be the principal part, but there are other things transmitted from the apostles by tradition: rules of conduct, practice, behavior, on worship/liturgy, etc.
(C) The content of tradition consisted “materially” of the Scriptures, but “formally” of the Faith of the Catholic Church, its reading of the Scriptures in the Creed, etc; the mere text of Scripture alone was insufficient; heretics also quoted Scripture but they did not read that Scripture in the context of the Tradition or the orthodox Faith of the Catholic Church;
(D) The Catholic Church alone has received the apostolic deposit of truth, for in her the Holy Spirit of truth lives (John 14:16f; 16:13f); the Church alone is the sole inheritor of the true Christian teaching from God through Christ to the Apostles;
(E) This Tradition – the Church’s Tradition – is itself oral; and if there were no NT Scriptures it would have been sufficient for the Church to follow “the order of tradition” received from the apostles; in the minds of the early Christians it made no difference if the transmission was purely oral since there was an assured connection to the apostles through the Churches founded by the apostles to guarantee authenticity;
(F) Scripture was everything for the Fathers, and Tradition was everything also;
(G) What was the nature of the Church of the Fathers? It was one universal visible Church ruled by a hierarchy of bishops, presbyters/priests, deacons, etc in succession from the apostles (apostolic succession, again not “succession of doctrine” only);
(H) The entire activity of the Fathers demonstrates that they united three terms that were separated and set in opposition by the controversies of the 16th century – these three terms were Scripture, Tradition, and Church; it was always affirmed that Scripture is the rule and norm of faith only when conjoined to the Church and her Tradition;
(I) Hence, the Scriptures were never considered by the Fathers as formally “sufficient” or exclusive.
(A) through (I) is a brief sketch of chapter 2 from
Tradition and Traditions by Yves Congar who also wrote in “Excursis A: The Sufficiency of Scripture According to the Fathers and Medieval Theologians” the following conclusions and analysis –
“There is a ‘fact of tradition’ which it is essential to take account of. Personally, I find no difficulty, and not a little joy, in discovering there the positive affirmation that Scripture contains, at least in the form of suggestion or principle, the entire treasury of truths which it is necessary to believe in order to be saved (provided there is an adequate presentation of the Gospel message). To say that, in the sense in which the Fathers and the medieval theologians held it, does not in any way amount to a profession of the principle of Scriptura sola demanded by the Reformers…It was with the intention of restoring the sovereignty of God alone that they presented that of Scripture as exclusive. In order to do this effectively, they affirmed the sufficiency of this Scripture, not uniquely in a material sense, that is to say as the object quod creditur, but in a formal sense, that is to say as the means whereby we know, the constitutive light by which we understand, the principle of the rule of faith…Not only was the whole of faith contained in Scripture, but the Christian, benefiting from the interior witness of the Holy Spirit could find it there.”
“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)
See also the quotes from Schaff, JND Kelly, and Pelikan in
this article. Webster/King ignore all of the above, where Mathison concedes much of the above, while still trying to argue around it from a Protestant Reformed standpoint. At least he is honest admitting the above.
Phil P
Well, the main reason I believe in sola Scriptura is because, * God alone swears securely, because He alone is infallible* and the Scriptures alone are the word of God.