|
|
28 of 34 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Some good arguments, some bad, November 21, 2003
William Webster has developed his little apologetics niche by arguing against the claims made by the Roman Catholic Church. Unfortunately, in this book he offers some really good arguments along with some really terrible ones. First the positive aspects of the book. Webster does a great job of dealing with the more Protestant oriented issues like justification, faith, and the Scriptures. I believe Webster argues convincingly that the deutero-cannonicals were not considered authoritative Scripture by the Church fathers. Nevertheless, he fails to take into consideration the fact that many of the fathers meant different things when they referred to the canon as opposed to Scripture. Just because the Fathers didn't regard the deuteros as part of the Christian canon, or books read during the liturgical season, doesn't mean they didn' regard them as Scripture. In fact, Athanasius lists the books of the canon as the 66 found in Protestant bibles minus Esther, but elsewhere in his writings he repeatedly refers to many of the apocryphal books as Scripture. Either he contradicted himself on many occasions or he had two divergent notions as to what the canon was and what was Scripture. When it comes to other issues like justification Webster is correct in his assessments of the the different ideas held by Protestants and Catholics, but he doesn't do enough to convince that his views are correct. Examining the Marian doctrines, Webster illustrates dogmas such as the assumption and immaculate conception weren't held by the Church Fathers. Also, his work on the supposed evolution of the papacy is also strong, but to understand that issue one should read his longer work, The Matthew 16 Controversey, for a fuller and more thorough line of argumentation. I believe that these sections were the stronger sections of the book, and the ones that were more convincing and persuasive in their argumentation. I think where Webster really goes off track is when he deals with issues like the Eucharist and the Sacraments. First, I don't know what qualifications Webster used to determine that Justin Martyr believed in consubstantiation while Ignatius of Antioch believed in transubstantiation. There is one time in Justin's Apology where he specifically says the bread and wine in the Eucharist is transmuted into the body and blood of Christ. Hardly, Lutheran type consubstantiation language to me. Also, to say that the Didache and Eusebius taught that the bread and wine were merely symbols is hard to swallow. First, Eusebius refers elsewhere in his writings to the bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ, so either he contradicts himself or means something different by the word symbol; In fact, Webster never examines the argument that the Greek word for symbol does not mean symbol in the way English speaking people understand it. In the Greek the word had a much stronger connotation and meaning, which can be evinced by the fact that many Fathers stated that Jesus Christ was the true symbol of God. They weren't saying that he just signified God, but that he was truly and actually God in the flesh. Finally, saying Augustine believed in a spiritual presense only does not take into his many statements where he says that the bread and the cup are truly Christ's body and blood. What I thought was really appalling was Webster's treatment of baptism. After stating that Fathers were unanimously agreed that baptism was efficacious for regeneration, spiritual life, and the remission of sins, Webster proceeds to state they were all wrong and then argues for a Zwinglian interpretation of baptism. I don't know about you, but if I have to choose between the unanimous opinion of the Fathers who much closer to the time of the Apostles, or the private opinions of one man writing in the 16th century, I will side with the Fathers. Overall, an interesting read, but I think Webster would be better served if he took each subject individually and wrote a more detailed examination of each topic.
|
by H. F. Stander
by James G. McCarthy
by Mal Couch
