Ten Things Every Catholic Should Know About Sola Scriptura

Standing on my head ^ | February 11, 2015 | Fr. Dwight Longenecker

[Elsie]

It SOUNDED right when it was TOLD to me...

[Elsie]

It’s a good thing those monks did a better job preserving and duplicating Bible manuscripts.

Oh?

https://www.google.com/search?q=copyist+erros+in+the+bible&rls=com.microsoft:en-US:IE-Address&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&gws_rd=ssl

[CpnHook]

By way of wrap-up about Webster, there's a third critique of his methodology that now may make more sense in light of the article cited in my prior post to you. And that is: he approaches history, not from the view of a credentialed historian, but rather as that of a Protestant proof-texter.

So Webster looks to the third century to see what how the Patristic writers interpret Matt. 16:18, whether they view "this rock" as "Peter" or "Peter's confession." And Webster then moves on to the 4th Century as asks the same question, making his conclusions on church polity from what he reads on this narrow point. Meanwhile --

* Back in the late first century, Clement of Rome is interjecting himself into the affairs of the church at Corinth, chiding them for their quarrels and factions. As noted by historian Cheetham, Clement neither attempts to explain his authority for doing so, nor is such questioned by anyone, which is a sign that such was already a habit of Rome.
* And in the 2nd Century we have the witness of Ignatius and Irenaeus, who both indicate a view of Rome that sees it as the preeminent church among the sister churches, the one who maintains the core of unity and doctrine;
* And even Orthodox scholars(e.g., Afanassieff and Schnemann) note that this early understanding of Roman primacy is not a point easily challenged.

So Webster is a bit of a case of "missing the forest for the verse." There's a lot more to the issue of Roman (Petrine) Primacy as it pertains to church polity than simply counting interpretations of one verse.

[BlueDragon]

On this

Irenaeus was "sola scriptura," but his "sola scriptura" was not your "sola scriptura."

your entire thesis crashes to the ground.

You obviously have no idea what "my" sola scriptura is, or how it is best applied.

I didn't even bother studying the so-called "follow-up" as for Webster, other than to see it as just a grab-bag of argument by way of assertion...

Catholics really hate that guy. He used to be one of them.

Now he knows better than to believe the blarney that is inexorably blended in with what truths there are, or can be found within Roman Catholicism.