Church of Rome at the Bar of History

Rating:
Summary: A must for those who want to read church history
Review: A definite 5-star rating book of prime importance. Webster focuses on major issues and in a non-polemical way, raises questions about doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church that current Catholics claim as part of a changeless creed, but which were not held by predecessors.

This book is becoming more and more popular in challenging the alleged authority and supremacy of the Roman Church. Webster certainly puts the Church of Rome to the Bar of History and finds it lacking in that court. The book is well organized, fully documenting the claims of the Roman Church as derived from official source documents and depicting the shortcomings of those claims from both historical sources and Scriptural interpretations as given by the early church fathers. Webster was well educated in the Catholic Church, attended parochial schools until a teenagers, and then a Benedictine monastery throughout high school years. He thoroughly understands the Roman Catholic faith and its doctrines.

Both the Councils of Trent and Vatican I contented "that the Roman Catholic Church alone has the authority to interpret Scripture correctly. And secondly, that no one, the Church included, is to hold an interpretation of Scripture which is contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers." Webster does an excellent job in not only challenging Rome's authority in interpretating Scriptures but also proves that "the Church cannot even claim unanimous consent from the early Fathers onwards for it current teaching on the nature of tradition itself, much less for a comprehensive body of doctrine with the exception of the broad biblical doctrines such as the existence of one God; the inspiration of Scripture; the recognition of Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord; and baptism." -p. 31.

Challenged also is the Roman Church belief in 'development of doctrine' or 'unfolding of doctrinal truth'. This is a theory that the apostles left truth in germ form in Scriptures which took centuries to develop fully and was revealed to the Church as the need arose. "If any doctrine is claimed as a true development it must be consistent with the truth of Scripture (its alleged source) and should be supported by the testimony of the Church to the manner in which it has been increasingly understood in the course of history." -p. 19. Webster states that no one denies that there can be a development in understanding the deep truths of Scripture over time (such as the doctrines of the Trinity and the dual natures of Christ), "but the theory now under consideration cannot legitimize Roman Catholic tradition for its fails two very important tests - the test of Scripture and the test of history." Of importance to Webster is to examine what interpretation of Scripture was held by the early church fathers.

I would recommend this book to anyone that needs to do research on the historical claims of the Roman Church and wants to be able to defend his views against those that makes claims that cannot be supported by historical documents.

Rating:
Summary: Great Use of Selective Quoting
Review: Any one interested in this owes it to themselves to read Steven Ray's UPON THIS ROCK which scholarly illustrates through extensive footnotes how Webster uses selecting quoting of each church Father to make his anti-catholic points unless of course you've already made up your mind ahead time. In numerous cases, as Steven Ray illustrates, Webster does not ever consider the whole body of each Father's work but merely quotes the material that appears damaging but selectively omits writings by same church father that does not support the protestant position. Consider the the Epistle of Clement I (96 A.D) which uses the words to Church of Corinthians "SEnd...Back" - This is a form of Imperial Roman terminology commanding performance. Ray shows how Corinthians 150 years later were still reading Clements letter outload at church according Church father Dioysius (A.D 166 -175)who was Bishop of Corinith.

Rating:
Summary: Be Careful how you use
Review: I believe this to be a 5-star book, but I am concerned about who reads it. I can't imagine any Catholic reading this book and believing the material; unless you're a Catholic who is genuinely questioning the authority of your church this will only get your hackles up. Protestants who are strong in their faith don't need historical evidence to be convinced of their beliefs, so I am afraid that this book will only serve to poison your spirit against Catholic brothers and sisters.

To those very close to a Catholic: this book is immensely helpful in deciding what to believe. You are bomabarded constantly with Catholic claims to "catholicity"; that is, that Christ instituted only one church (naturally, the RCC) and that all Christians everywhere and for all time have believed exactly what the RCC says. Along the same lines, Reformation beliefs are johnny-come-lately's and that Protestants should return to the "real" church. This is the most difficult argument of Catholics to wrestle with, because Bible verses can be interpreted differently as can fruits of the Spirit but history is a fact.

Well, Webster blows the "catholic" argument out of the water. He has an easy job, because he doesn't have to show that Church Fathers would have been Protestant, merely that some beliefs of each father go against modern Catholicism. By quoting historical documents (which are extensively referenced), he shows that the early Church contained a mix of "Catholic" and "Protestant" beliefs (at best) or were entirely opposed to an idea like a papacy at the beginning. He admits that the doctrine of the Eucharist is the best supported historically, but even so, some authoritative writers explicitly supported views more like Calvin's on the topic.

I would say, then, that Webster succeeds in using his book to show that Reformation beliefs had support in the early Church and that the RCC is unjustified in dismissing Protestant beliefs as going against history, and that even some of its own beliefs contradict the statements of those it uses for support. Even if it does not convince, for whatever reason, a single Catholic, I am convinced that I should not be swayed by any claims of the RCC to sole ownership of history.

Rating:
Summary: GREAT PRIMARY SOURCE MATERIAL!
Review: In the Church of Rome at the Bar of History, William Webster demonstrates that Protestant ideas were not invented in the 16th century as some would suggest. Webster deals with four major concerns in his book: the authority of Scripture, church government, the Lord's Supper, and justification by faith alone; he quotes the church fathers on these important issues.To begin with, William Webster shows how Scripture is authoritative because of its intrinsic value as God's Word, as opposed to the Roman Catholic belief that Scripture derives its authority from the Church. After all, Scripture was authoritative before any church council. From here, he shows that the first infallible council to determine the canon did not come until The Council of Trent (Webster lays out a multitude of reasons why The Council of Carthage was not considered "infallible," and how the Apocrypha was not canonized until the Council of Trent. A fact that even the New Catholic Encyclopedia suggests). After this, Webster goes on to show that Scripture alone is our sole rule of faith. He quotes many of the church fathers. St. Augustine stated: "What more shall I teach you than what we read in the apostle? For Holy Scripture fixes the rule of our doctrine, lest we dare be wiser than we ought. Therefore I should not teach you anything else except to expound to you the words of the Teacher." He also examines the church fathers use of the term "tradition," and compares and contrasts it with the way the term came to be used in the Medieval Church. In the area of church government, Webster shows that no bishop had supremacy in the early church. He includes writings from the fathers on the meaning of the word "rock" in Matthew 16 showing that many believed the term was speaking of "faith" or "Christ". Even those who believed that Peter was the "rock" did not apply the term to his succesors in an exclusive sense until later on. Webster also looks at beliefs about the eucharist in the early church. Although some of the church fathers said things that are irreconciliable wtih the Reformed position, there is also a tradition in the early church that is in blatant opposition to the doctrine of transubstantiation. He provides quotes from the church fathers using the word "symbol" to describe the bread and wine. For example, Clement states, "The Scripture accordingly, has named wine the symbol of the sacred blood." He also provides Augustine's homily on John 6, in which Augustine interprets the passage figuratively: "To believe on Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, because invisibly is he born again." Webster goes on to show the development of Marian dogma within Roman Catholicism and how the Protestant view of justification has support in the writings of the church fathers. This book is definitely the most thorough Protestant apologetic available in the area of church history in the last decade. In it, he shows that Protestant ideas were present in the early church, yet he doesn't try to turn every church father into John Calvin (he doesn't look at the past with rose colored glasses). In the back of The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, Webster includes about 50 pages of primary source material from authorities in the chruch. This book is also "Catholic friendly" in that Webster, who was once a Roman Catholic, is not rude, sarcastic, or mean. I thank God for such a needed book.

Rating:
Summary: Roman Catholics Must Abandon Historical Arguments
Review: Please Mr. Webster, after reading your book I still have questions. Indulge me, won't you?

In 1 Timothy 3:15 St. Paul says that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. But which Church Mr. Webster? The Baptist Church (created by John Smyth in 1600)? The Lutheran Church (created by Martin Luther in 1524)? The Presbyterian Church (created by John Knox in 1560)? The Espiscopalian Church (created by King Henry VIII in 1534)? Is it one of these Protestant Churches or perhaps one I have left out? If so, where was the Holy Spirit all those centuries before some MAN created it?

Additionally, Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would lead His Church into all truth and shield it from error. Interesting, Mr. Webster, you think that Jesus waited to keep these promises for some 15 centuries, until Luther or Knox or Henry VIII came along and formed their own Churches?!

I was also hoping to be enlightened on Sola Scriptura (the Bible alone). Candidly, I was sure you would provide me the chapter and verse where this is taught in the Bible. But you didn't, because you couldn't. Yep, it's unscriptural.

So, I return to my original question... Which Church was Jesus and St. Paul talking about? Here are some hints, Mr. Webster. It's the one founded in A.D. 33, not by a MAN, but by Jesus Christ Himself. It's the one that Peter was made leader of. It's the one that today has an unbroken chain of leadership all the way back to blessed Peter, the rock.

The Church that Jesus, St. Peter, St. Paul, Polycarp, St. Ignatius, Irenaeus, Clement I, Justin Martyr, et al, were talking about is the one labled in Greek as "universal". To the inexplicable consternation of many, it is the Catholic Church. Mr. Webster, the Church you impugn as wrong and in error, is the Church Jesus created. I put all my faith and devotion to the Church that Jesus created. You advise others, in this weak book, to place their faith in Churches created by common men. For shame.

For those who want to be exposed to the faith of the Apostles should read... ROME SWEET HOME by Scott and Kimberly Hahn, SURPRISED BY TRUTH by Patrick Madrid, BORN FUNDAMENTALIST; BORN AGAIN CATHOLIC by David Currie, ANSWERING A FUNDAMENTALIST by Albert Nevins or try the CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. These titles are available right here on Amazon.com. The truth is much more interesting, and compelling, than fiction.

Rating:
Summary: "Biased Ignorance"
Review: This well-documented work details where and why Evangelicals differ with the Catholic Church. Appendices offer writings of the early Church Fathers on such issues as the 'Rock' referred to by Jesus in Matthew 16, early views on Christ's presence in the Eucharist and the nature of Justification. The author contrasts Catholic doctrines with Scripture and with the words of the Fathers themselves. A fascinating book that I found hard to put down.

Rating:
Summary: Some good arguments, some bad
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: Some good arguments, some bad
Review: 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.