LINKS
A critique of William Webster's essay:
LOGIC for Protestants to test. ““Test everything. Hold on to the good.” 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22
Return to Homepage
Dear Christian reader. The above link is a critique of William Webster's essay: "Did I Really Leave," (for which the answer is a resounding yes). The logic truths contained in it extend to all of his works, for the premise is the same. The above essay was sent to me by a dear friend and classmate who attempted to use his essay as evidence of the early Church Fathers being advocates of Sola Scriptura or the Bible Only idea.
As I demonstrate logically, there were no devout Protestants in the first millennium because they didn’t exist yet, only devout Catholics. For the *only* Christian faith in the first millennium was the Catholic Faith. And logic follows there were also no Protestant ideas such as Sola Scriptura in the first millennium because they too had not been invented yet. Given these historical facts, Mr. Webster tries to force ancient devout Catholic Saints to speak "renaissanic protestanteeze." He tries to force them to substantiate Sola Scriptura through misquotes, incomplete quotes and as we will see, flawed logic.
The misrepresentations in Mr. Webster's works are not critiqued theologically here. There is no need to, for his account of Christian history is unsubstantiated and his logic tree is non-existent. We know Mormon theology is flawed because it did not exist in the first millennium. Therefore it can be rejected without even opening the Holy Bible. The same principle applies to the life works of Mr. Webster on Sola Scriptura: it didn't exist in the first millennium for the Apostles to teach. This is freshman history and logic 101. For if the Catholic Saints used Sola Scriptura, a concept in the Protestant sense unknown until the second millennium, we must ask ourselves one very salient question. A question that undermines all of Mr. Webster’s works and for which he is at a loss of words for. In fact his entire life's writings on Sola Scriptura crumble when asked the following question and an answer is actually demanded. I personally asked Mr. Webster this question and his answer was silence yet again, which is understandable given his position and what he has to lose by actually answering it.
Did the early Church Fathers embrace Sola Scriptura or the Bible Only idea? Many Protestants like Mr. Webster claim that SS was taught by the early Church Fathers such as St. Augustine (5th century) or other Catholic Saints. This line of reasoning is logically impossible for the modern Christian as illustrated below.
So which is it Mr. Webster?
Either Augustine (or other Church Fathers) embraced SS, or he didn't.
Which position does Mr. Webster take? 1, 2, or 3?
This is Mr. Webster’s pickle.
1. If Christ's Church really did embrace Sola Scriptura as he claims, why does *he* not embraced what was derived from the Scriptures Solely, using this method?? (I.e., The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the Saving power of Baptism, the Sacraments, the liturgy, ordination of its clergy, salvation by "Grace through Faith", vs. "once saved always saved" etc., all doctrines embraced by the first Protestants even..but not Mr. Webster.) Why does he not embrace the Christian Faith of the first millennium? Why does he not embrace the ONLY Christian Faith of the first millennium if it used SS as he maintains? And why does he reject the faith of his own first reformers if they used SS too? If SS is true as he asserts, why does Mr. Webster reject SS's product? For according to Mr. Webster, SS was embraced by the Church Fathers in the first millennium. But the product of this SS used by the Church Fathers i.e., Catholic theology, is rejected by Mr. Webster and his kind and that is Mr. Webster's pickle.
Or
2. Since he rejects the universal faith of the first millennium that was derived via Sola Scriptura, (and he denounces this faith as "apostate"), this means that the modus operandi that this Church used to derive its theology (i.e., Sola
Scriptura) is flawed itself, and not a viable method of coming to the true Gospel of
Christ for it doesn't work every time if anytime. If this is the case we should reject Sola Scriptura outright!
Or
3. Contrary to what Mr. Webster asserts, perhaps none of the devout Catholics of the first millennium embraced SS because it didn’t exist in that millennium. If this is the case Mr. Webster should not lead others to believe it did exist or that devout Catholics embraced this Protestant idea. That would not be an honest portrayal of history.
This is the pickle Mr. Webster has himself in and this is why Mr. Webster and his ideas on Sola Scriptura should be dismissed outright. They don't make sense historically and he has no answer the flawed logic.
It's catch-22.
So which is the case? 1,2, or 3?
How does Mr. Webster answer this for one cannot have it both ways? Either (name your early Church Father here) embraced SS or he didn't. If he did, answer question 1 or 2. If he didn't answer question 3.
What Mr. Webster needs to teach is that the Holy Bible is materially sufficient in that it holds all the materials for the complete faith of Christ's Gospel, but it is not formally sufficient, in that everything required for the Christian Faith is present in the proper form to "take off the shelf" if you will. A perfect example is the Holy Trinity. It is "materially" present in the Holy Bible but it is not "formally" present, for nowhere does the Holy Bible define the Trinity as: One God in three persons, all existing from eternity, that the Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son as the Nicene Creed states. Where does it state that the Holy Spirit is Divine as well as a separate person in the Trinity or define the Trinity as we know it today, or even mention the word "Trinity?"
Another example is the Christian understanding of Christ, that he was fully divine and fully human, one person not two, but with two natures, one divine and one human. Was he born human and then became divine?? Or vise versa? Or half and half? Or did he possess both qualities since the incarnation? These principles and doctrines are not "Formally" presented in the Holy Bible, so for one to claim it is "the complete Truth and all that we need" or any variation of that, ignores the fact that not everything is in the Bible in a formal manner. Something else gave us these formal definitions of GOD. And that something else was the: "The church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of Truth" 1 Tim 3:15. The Church Mr. Webster left of his own free will.
But this is all predicated on one wanting to believe as the Apostles taught Christ's early Church, no matter where it leads him and no matter what it costs him. If this is not your desire, all bets are off and you are free to believe anything and everything whether the Apostles taught it or not. But if this is not the case, go to the LOGIC link above and "Test" your theology as the Holy Bible commands.
“Test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil.” 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22
I just want to believe as the Apostles taught Christ's early Church, no matter where it takes me and no matter what it costs me. If you desire the same, Click the Logic link and test what you have never tested before.
OTHER LINKS:
1. "BIBLE ONLY" CHRISTIAN or "BIBLE BELIEVING" CHRISTIAN?
45 Practices and Doctrines not found in the Holy Bible. http://www.angelfire.com/home/protestantchallenges/unbiblical.html
2. JUST THE TRUTH: 2 Dozen Logic and Historical Facts Refuting the Apostolicity and Biblicism of the Modern Christian Belief Systems "Test Everything." http://www.angelfire.com/home/protestantchallenges/justfacts.html
3. An Exercise in Logic, Two Logic Proofs from History 101 demonstrating how the modern Christian theologies did not even exist in the first millennium, making it impossible for Christ and His Apostles to have taught to His early Church.
http://www.angelfire.com/home/protestantchallenges/logic.html
4. Three uneasy questions for your pastor concerning his personal theology. http://www.angelfire.com/home/protestantchallenges/formypastor.html
5. Seven Reasons Christians Go To Church, Which One Is Yours? http://www.angelfire.com/home/protestantchallenges/7stages.html
6. "The 7 Stages of Christian Spiritual Development" What stage are you? http://www.angelfire.com/home/protestantchallenges/7stages.html
7. The Historical Origins & Authors of the Modern Christian Theologies. http://www.angelfire.com/home/protestantchallenges/dates.html
8. Is Sola Scriptura or the "Bible Only" idea even Biblical? Where does the Bible teach the "SOLA" or the "ONLY" in Sola Scriptura? http://www.angelfire.com/home/protestantchallenges/ss.html
9. Modern Christians often ask: "WHAT ELSE IS THERE? What else has Christ's infallible authority besides the Holy Bible?" Featuring the verses not underlined in most Bibles nor taught in modern Christian seminaries or churches. http://www.angelfire.com/home/protestantchallenges/whatelse.html
10. FAITH ALONE (SOLA FIDE): It is a Catholic Position. Have you been taught that Catholics "work their way to Heaven?" http://www.angelfire.com/home/protestantchallenges/faithalone.html
11. "Who is the Bride of Christ?" What does the Holy Bible say? http://www.angelfire.com/home/protestantchallenges/bride.html
12. Did the BEREANS "Search the Scriptures" and therefore follow the BIBLE ONLY idea?
Or did the THESSALONIANS, who also "Searched the Scriptures? http://www.angelfire.com/home/protestantchallenges/bereans.html
13. The 3rd Unanswered Challenge for the Non-Catholic Theologies:
Is the Catholic Faith Apostolic? Name just one Catholic doctrine that isn't. Name one doctrine the early Church believed,,,, that the Catholic Faith today *no longer does*. Why can't the modern Christian theologies make the same bold claim? http://www.angelfire.com/home/protestantchallenges/3challenge.html
14. Biblically, did the "Official Teachings or Doctrines of the Catholic Faith" become corrupt or Apostate as your Pastor might teach? Are there verses in the Holy Scriptures that forbid the "Gates of Hell" from overcoming His Church? What does the Holy Bible really say about: "The Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth" 1 Tim :15? http://www.angelfire.com/home/protestantchallenges/gatesofhell.html
15. Is Praying to Saints Biblical? Is the "HAIL MARY" Prayer Biblical? Read the verses not underlined in your pastors Bible nor taught in his church. http://www.angelfire.com/home/protestantchallenges/saints.html
16. How Modern Christian are compelled to use and embrace an unbiblical and anti-biblical definition and concept of a Christian Church. http://www.angelfire.com/home/protestantchallenges/onchurch.html