St. Athanasius vs. William Webster -- The Meaning of "Saints" in Festal Letter 2.6

St. Athanasius vs. William Webster

A Debate on the meaning of "Saints" in Festal Letter 2.6 (and elsewhere)

"But after him and with him are all inventors of unlawful heresies, who indeed refer to the Scriptures, but do not hold such opinions as the saints (hagioi) have handed down, and receiving them as the traditions of men, err, because they do not rightly know them nor their power." (Webster, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith [vol 2, page 60] -- citing Athanasius, Festal Letter 2.6)

"...as the context reveals, in his use of the word saints, Athanasius is not referring to Church fathers but to the writers of Scripture. He calls them saints and Fathers, and refers to their writings as the apostolic tradition. We are to be followers of the saints, that is, of the apostles, by following what they have written..." (Webster, ibid)

This was a short debate on the meaning of the phrase "opinions as the saints have handed down, and receiving them as the traditions of men, err" in St. Athanasius Festal Letter 2.6 -- what is the meaning of "opinions as the saints have handed down"? In his new defense of Sola Scriptura titled Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith (volume 2), Webster suggests it means the "apostles handing down the Scriptures" since saints = apostles and prophets in Festal Letter 2.7 and elsewhere in the writings of St. Athanasius.

I have shown this makes no sense and the clear understanding is that here saints = orthodox saints or Fathers handing down the orthodox or correct interpretation of the Scriptures. Hence, Joe Gallegos is correct in his use of this in Not By Scripture Alone edited by Robert Sungenis (Queenship, 1997). According to Athanasius, the heretics indeed "refer to the Scriptures" but they received, not the Scriptures or the apostles, but the opinions of the orthodox saints as the "traditions of men."

Here is how the discussion went... I will be answering Webster's claims on St. Athanasius in more depth later...

On Webster/King Volumes on Sola Scriptura

From Greg's Discussion Board > God Talk at Ezboard (defunct)

Does anyone own and/or digested these 1100 pages yet? I know we all have lives, and these books just came out, so it may take some time for someone to address all their points. I have finished volume 1 (on biblical evidence for Sola Scriptura -- mainly 2 Tim 3:16-17 again, and 2 Peter 1:19-21), going through volume 2 (on the Fathers and Webster's commentary, and 2nd half on OT canon, his anti-Catholic stuff on Mary/Assumption again, his Honorius stuff once again, etc), and skimming volume 3 (just 300 pages of patristic quotes taken verbatim from the 38 volume Eerdmans set I believe). I just got the volumes like 2 weeks ago and would like some feedback.

I have written a preliminary review from my amateur "Catholic E-Apologist" standpoint and hope it is not too triumphalistic. Found here www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/num49.htm

A short question: Is Webster out to lunch when he claims St. Athanasius was referring to the Scriptures in the following quote:

Quote: "But after him (the devil) and with him are all inventors of unlawful heresies, who indeed refer to the Scriptures, BUT DO NOT hold such opinions as the SAINTS HAVE HANDED DOWN, and receiving them as the traditions of men, err, because they DO NOT rightly KNOW THEM nor their power" (Festal Letter 2.6)

Webster says Saints = Apostles, so Athanasius is stating the heretics do not hold such opinions as the apostles have handed down in the Scriptures. I think this is nuts just looking at the brief context above. But Webster tries to show where Athanasius uses "saints" for apostles in other sections of his writings. I had not thought of that before....

How about this quote on the authority of the Council of Nicaea?

Quote: "We are PROVING that THIS view has been TRANSMITTED from FATHER to FATHER, but ye, O modern Jews and disciples of Caiaphas, how many FATHERS CAN YE ASSIGN to your phrases? Not one of the understandings and wise; for all abhor you, but the devil alone; none but he is your father in this apostasy, who both in the beginning sowed you with the seed of this IRRELIGION, and now persuades you to slander the ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, for committing to writing, not YOUR doctrines, but that which from the BEGINNING those who were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word have handed down to us. For the faith which the COUNCIL has confessed in writing, that is the faith of the Catholic Church; to assert this, the BLESSED FATHERS so expressed themselves while condemning the Arian heresy..." De Decretis 27

Does not Athanasius here equate the "Faith of Nicaea" with "the Faith of the Catholic Church" meaning infallible teaching to be believed by all? The Anathema attached to the canons of Nicaea implies the Church believed in her infallibility to define doctrine, does it not? Or so says Philip Hughes in his excellent History of the General Councils....

I own the 3 volume Jurgens, the 4 volume Quastan Patrology, but need to take out (again) the multiple volumes from Eerdmans to deal with all their patristic evidence in detail. As I see it, a vast majority of their quotations from the Fathers are irrelevant since Catholics can agree with them on the authority, the power, the beauty, and inspiration/inerrancy of Scripture (talking "conservative" or "orthodox" Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox here). The "debate" comes down to the quotations on "tradition" and what they meant by the term (which Webster tries to address somewhat in volume 2).

What do you all think? Let's debate....? I am coming in late here and read parts of the recent Sungenis/Mathison debate...Excellent board and discussion!

11/24/2001 8:16:37 pm

Where Keith does well -- GregK

Phil, The thing that is often lacking in Protestant discussions of Scripture and tradition is any evaluation of (or even cognizance of!) the use of revelation and authority in the church before and during the writing of the NT and before the development of the canon. It seems to me that even the most cursory review of how the early church dealt with the teachings of the apostles before there was a NT should cure people of most of the silliness in the sola scriptura debates.

This is where I think Keith's work is so helpful because it shows Protestants that a recognition of the divine authority of tradition is (1) necessary (2) inescapable and (3) not necessarily a repudiation of Protestant principles.

Do Webster et al. show any signs of understanding those issues?

Greg

11/25/2001 12:16:37 pm

Keith Mathison vs. David King

I do not have Keith Mathison's book yet but I need to get it. King argues the "biblical defense" of SS in volume 1 and he does agree that the oral teaching of the apostles (the "tradition" the early church was following before any NT Scripture was written down) was as binding and authoritative as Scripture. For example, King writes

Quote: "Contrary to persistent charges by Roman apologists, Protestant Evangelicals do affirm the binding authority of apostolic tradition as delivered by the apostles. What they preached and taught in the first century Church was authoritatively binding on the consciences of all Christians." (vol 1, page 55)

AND

Quote: "To be sure, all special revelation given by God is authoritative and binding. There can be no doubt that the oral teaching of the apostles and their approved representatives was both (1 Thess 2:13)." (vol 1, page 145)

So King admits this much but he argues (as other Protestant apologists have done) that today we have no "access" to those oral teachings, and besides, they are identical in substance to the NT. Something you argued a long time ago on James White's old Sola Scriptura list of which I was a brief part (back in 1996!). Where King is vulnerable is where he ALSO argues

(1) his "biblical defense" actually rests on two verses: 2 Tim 3:15-17 and 2 Peter 1:19-21; and some other texts briefly discussed in 300 pages

(2) this "oral tradition" was never intended to be passed on or handed down in the church (i.e. contrary to 2 Tim 1:13-14; 2:2; etc, only the written suffices for all Christian doctrine and practice)

(3) The Fathers did not believe in apostolic succession of office, but only "succession of doctrine" (I have heard White use this in the past so this must be a standard "Evangelical" reply)

(4) None of the Fathers believed the Church as a whole to be infallible (this is contradicted by Webster himself in his earlier contribution in the book Roman Catholicism edited by John Armstrong, I guess Webster changed his mind)

(5) He also claims CERTAINLY everyone could read and the Fathers told everyone to purchase Bibles! More later....

11/25/2001 2:03:37 pm

It's a circular argument -- nmcgillivray

Yeah, that interpretation from Festal Letter 2 is nuts. Even if Athanasius was referring to the Apostles, what is Webster trying to have him say? "They indeed refer to Scripture, but do not hold the opinions of the Apostles as evidenced in the Scriptures"??? That's the beginning of a circular argument if I've ever seen one. They refer to Scriptures but do not know them. How does one know the opinions contained therein? I guess you would refer to them.

It's a crazy argument to make. In other words, the argument is essentially if you agree with me, this is obviously Scriptural teaching as handed down by the Apostles. If you don't agree with me, it's because you hold the traditions of men. The argument they use for Nicea is also a circular argument. They say that Nicea was right because it was the teaching of the Fathers. How do we know it was the teaching of the Fathers? Because its in Scripture. The argument seems to assume that one cannot go wrong when reading Scripture.

Neil

11/26/2001 11:39:22 am

Webster vs. Athanasius

Quote: Yeah, that interpretation from Festal Letter 2 is nuts. Even if Athanasius was referring to the Apostles, what is Webster trying to have him say? "They indeed refer to Scripture, but do not hold the opinions of the Apostles as evidenced in the Scriptures"??? That's the beginning of a circular argument if I've ever seen one.

Thanks for the response, glad someone agrees Webster is nutty! He kind of interprets the Fathers his own way, since very few Fundamentalists/Evangelicals have even attempted to delve into them in the necessary depth required to respond to the Gallegos chapter in Not By Scripture Alone... So Webster has nothing to go on as far as "pro-baptistic Evangelical" commentary on the Fathers, so he kind of makes some of this stuff up on the fly. To his credit, at times he does quote some credible sources/commentary. Anyone else want to contribute to my critique of the new Webster/King volumes let me know! I have seen David King post here, perhaps he can drop by again and we can discuss his new book.

www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/num49.htm

11/26/2001 6:53:07 pm

Re: Webster vs. Athanasius -- Romans45

Well maybe I can understand how "someone" would agree with you who has not read Webster on this subject, however since you have read Webster your calling his interpretation "nutty" is somewhat odd. First of all, Webster gives the context of the quote that you did not provide. I think the context proves Webster is correct and for sure it proves he is nowhere close to "nutty" in his interpretation.

Secondly, he gives another example where Athanasius refers to Scriptures as the "teaching of the saints". Finally, he quotes a scholar C.R.B Shapland who agrees that Athanasius usually is referring to the Scriptures and biblical writers when he uses the terms "teaching of the saints" and "saints".

I think this last paragraph [in your note] shows the bias in your assessment of Webster even though you attempt to camouflage it in your last sentence. The beauty of the King and Webster work is very seldom ( if ever, I can't recall a topic) in which they do not have some support from a respected scholar or church father. Obviously if you read the work you should know that is the case. Therefore, your claim that Webster is making this up as he goes is ludicrous, even though you attempt to temper it by say "at times he quotes credible sources/commentary". Could it be that this was one of the times he quoted a credible source ? Or instead are you saying this is one of the times Webster is making it up as he goes with one of his "nutty" interpretations?

Romans45

11/27/2001 2:20:16 am

Webster vs. Athanasius

Thanks for the reply. Not only have I read Webster on this, but I have his first book where he says "Jesus dies often" in the Mass (that is a direct quote), the book Roman Catholicism edited by Armstrong where Webster contributed a chapter, his Matthew 16 Controversy, also his Church of Rome at the Bar of History, also his rare debate with Gerry Matatics from 1992 from St. Joe Communications. So Yes, I know Webster pretty well.

I just read the online version of Festal Letter 2 to see what Webster has cut out of the quotation. On the quote in question from vol 2, page 60-61, Webster does not give the full context. He does quote MORE of the context in a footnote #131 (vol 2, page 109). That is correct, I forgot about that.

The question is what does "opinions as the saints have handed down" refer to? Does it refer to the opinions of the apostles (i.e. the Scriptures alone) or the opinions/statements/teachings of the orthodox Fathers? If the former Webster would be correct, if the latter then Catholics (such as Gallegos who also quotes this) are correct that Athanasius is referring to some authoritative "tradition" that the heretics were ignoring and treating as "the tradition of men."

Here is what Webster quotes verbatim:

Quote: "But after him and with him are all inventors of unlawful heresies, who indeed refer to the Scriptures, but do not hold such opinions as the saints (hagioi) have handed down, and receiving them as the traditions of men, err, because they do not rightly know them nor their power." (Webster, vol 2, page 60 -- citing Athanasius, Festal Letter 2.6)

Looking at the full context below, "after him and with him" refers to Satan. And those "inventors of unlawful heresies" refers to the modern heretics of Athanasius' day (such as Arius). Can we agree on that much? Athanasius then says they (the heretics) "indeed refer to the Scriptures" -- i.e. they quote and make reference to Scripture, as all the Arians did. Athanasius then says BUT they "do NOT hold such opinions as the saints have handed down, and receiving them as the TRADITIONS OF MEN, ERR..."

Did Arius reject the Scriptures as the "traditions of men" ? Of course not, since all the early heretics referred to and quoted the Scriptures. So Gallegos is indeed correct and Webster is wrong that "opinions as the saints have handed down" refers to Scripture alone. As I said already, it doesn't even make sense in the immediate context.

Sorry to go through this with a fine tooth comb, but I think folks need to watch how Webster quotes the Fathers that supposedly support "Sola Scriptura" in these volumes. There is a lot more from Athanasius that Webster ignores. Here is the full context of Festal Letter 2.6 where the quote appears:

Quote: 6. For not only in outward form did those wicked men dissemble, putting on as the Lord says sheep's clothing, and appearing like unto whited sepulchres; but they took those divine words in their mouth, while they inwardly cherished evil intentions. And the first to put on this appearance was the serpent, the inventor of wickedness from the beginning-the devil, who, in disguise, conversed with Eve, and forthwith deceived her. But after him and with him are all inventors of unlawful heresies, who indeed refer to the Scriptures, but do not hold such opinions as the saints have handed down, and receiving them as the traditions of men, err, because they do not rightly know them nor their power. Therefore Paul justly praises the Corinthians, because their opinions were in accordance with his traditions. And the Lord most righteously reproved the Jews, saying, 'Wherefore do ye also transgress the commandments of God on account of your traditions.' For they changed the commandments they received from God after their own understanding, preferring to observe the traditions of men. And about these, a little after, the blessed Paul again gave directions to the Galatians who were in danger thereof, writing to them, 'If any man preach to you aught else than that ye have received, let him be accursed.' (St. Athanasius, Festal Letter 2.6)

Looking at this full quotation in context, I think there is no question Athanasius is referring to the orthodox Fathers or saints who have handed down the true orthodox interpretations of the Scriptures. The Arians (who followed after Satan) indeed referred to the Scriptures all the time, but they did not hold the orthodox interpretation of the saints (Fathers) that were handed down in the Church. I believe that to be the correct understanding of his words here. Athanasius goes on to say in the very next sentence, that therefore Paul justly PRAISES the Corinthians because they held to HIS "traditions." In contrast, the heretics treated with contempt the traditions of the Fathers.

However, it is ALSO true Athanasius refers to saints meaning the apostles/prophets in his Festal Letters and elsewhere. On that much Webster is correct, but Athanasius simply is not referring to "Scripture alone" here in Festal Letter 2.6.

Quote: I think the context proves Webster is correct and for sure it proves he is nowhere close to "nutty" in his interpretation. Secondly, he gives another example where Athanasius refers to Scriptures as the "teaching of the saints". Finally, he quotes a scholar C.R.B Shapland who agrees that Athanasius usually is referring to the Scriptures and biblical writers when he uses the terms "teaching of the saints" and "saints".

Shapland does not help him here. Shapland does not remotely say Athanasius is referring to Scripture alone in the Festal Letter 2 in question. He gives examples of "teachings of the saints" = teachings of the apostles (Scripture), that is all. The key to understanding the quote in question is that the heretics were the ones who "indeed REFERRED to the Scriptures" but WHAT they held as the "traditions of men" were the "opinions as the saints have handed down..." (i.e. the orthodox Fathers and saints), not the Scriptures since they indeed REFERRED to the Scriptures.

Quote: I think this last paragraph shows the bias in your assessment of Webster even though you attempt to camouflage it in your last sentence. The beauty of the King and Webster work is very seldom (if ever, I can't recall a topic) in which they do not have some support from a respected scholar or church father. Obviously if you read the work you should know that is the case. Therefore, your claim that Webster is making this up as he goes is ludicrous, even though you attempt to temper it by say "at times he quotes credible sources/commentary". Could it be that this was one of the times he quoted a credible source ? Or instead are you saying this is one of the times Webster is making it up as he goes with one of "nutty" interpretations?

Oh, I am certainly "biased" as we all are. But I still say Webster is "nutty" that "do not hold such opinions as the saints have handed down" refers to the Scriptures alone. Your turn. Let's exhaust Festal Letter 2 before moving on....

11/27/2001 3:23:15 am

Re: On Webster/King Volumes on Sola Scriptura -- Jason1646

First of all, I must say that your immediate pejorative remarks against Webster strike me as merely nervous desperation. Instead of interacting with his material, you simply try to dismiss it out of the hand with an insult and an appeal to what is apparently obvious from the "brief context", yet never saying what it is. Webster is right on the mark in his analysis. Articles 6 and 7 of the Second Festal Letter provide part of the weighty material that "saints" = "apostles" and that the object which they are handing down is the Scriptures. As the next paragraph of the Second Festal Letter continues:

7. For there is no fellowship whatever between the words of the saints and the fancies of human invention; for the saints are the ministers of the truth, preaching the kingdom of heaven...Therefore blessed Luke reproves the inventions of men, and hands down the narrations of the saints, saying in the beginning of the Gospel...For as each of the saints has received, that they impart without alteration, for the confirmation of the doctrine of the mysteries. Of these the (divine) word would have us disciples, and these should of right be our teachers, and to them only is it necessary to give heed, for of them only is `the word faithful and worthy of all acceptation ;' these not being disciples because they heard from others, but being eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word, that which they had heard from Him have they handed down.

So Athanasius says: 1) There is no fellowship between the words of the saints and human invention. 2) Therefore, Luke reproves human invention. How? By handing down the narration of the saints. Is this narration some oral tradition? No, he hands down their narration in his Gospel. 3) These narrations which are handed down (in Scripture) are for the confirmation of doctrine, should be our teachers, and to them only it is necessary to give heed.

P: Does not Athanasius here equate the "Faith of Nicaea" with "the Faith of the Catholic Church" meaning infallible teaching to be believed by all? The Anathema attached to the canons of Nicaea implies the Church believed in her infallibility to define doctrine, does it not?

Jason: No it doesn't. Only someone with prior commitments would say that a council setting forth doctrinal truths that are universally held in the church means, necessarily, that they believed they were infallible. I've seen this argument made before ... that any genuine church authority or confident promulgation of doctrinal truth MUST mean that they thought they were infallible. It simply is not necessary. It is certainly possible to perceive it in that way once someone already has that prior commitment, but then what must be proven is already assumed.

The meticulous documentation done by Webster is honest and scholarly. I think he deserves a bit more than these allegations of being "out to lunch", "nuts" and "crazy" as witnessed in the first couple of posts begun to address this impressive work. If you were hoping to drag Pastor King into the discussion using emotive posts, I hope that he esteems his time as worthy enough to refrain from responding to such unthoughtful criticisms.

Sincerely in Christ, Jason.

11/27/2001 4:19:39 pm

More on Webster's Mistake

Romans45 says,

Quote: Re-read paragraph 2,3, 4, and 5 again and it is clear that Athanasius is talking about the heretics understanding of Scripture is distorted and in that way they are not holding to the opinions of the saints, which are the biblical writers.

I wanted to quote this portion since this also is key. You said "the opinions of the saints" = "the biblical writers" in Festal Letter 2.6 passage. Okay, then... My question would be: Did the heretics REJECT the biblical writers? That is, did the heretics REJECT the apostles? I'm not talking about "ultimately" reject but in principle -- Did the heretics REJECT the Scriptures as "the traditions of men"? If the answer is NO, then once again, Webster is wrong on Festal Letter 2.6 That is about as simple and clear as I can make it.

11/28/2001 12:42:58 am

Beating a Dead Athanasius or Horse

Another clear way to demonstrate what I have been saying... Does St. Athanasius mean by the following:

Quote: "But after him [Satan] and with him [Satan] are all inventors of unlawful heresies [the heretics], who indeed refer to the Scriptures, but do not hold such opinions as the saints have handed down, and receiving them as the traditions of men, err, because they do not rightly know them nor their power." (from Festal Letter 2.6)

SUBSTITUTE "hold such opinions as the saints have handed down" with "hold to the Scriptures as the apostles have handed down" as Webster and you guys are suggesting and we have....

Quote: "But after him [Satan] and with him [Satan] are all inventors of unlawful heresies [the heretics], who indeed refer to the Scriptures, but do not hold to the Scriptures as the apostles have handed down, and receiving them as the traditions of men, err, because they do not rightly know them nor their power." (revised Webster version of Festal Letter 2.6)

The key phrase is "receiving them as the TRADITIONS OF MEN...." If the above is the correct understanding as you guys insist, my only question is: Did the heretics (for example, the Arians) receive the Scriptures as "THE TRADITIONS OF MEN?" Did they reject the Scriptures as FALSE? Yes or No? Historically, the clear answer is NO.

Even St. Athanasius acknowledges the Arians believed the Scriptures were true, that they were "inspired of God." Where they differed was over the correct interpretation of Scripture. THAT -- the orthodox or correct interpretation of the Scriptures -- is what was handed down in the Church by the "saints" (orthodox Fathers). THAT -- the orthodox or correct interpretation of the Scriptures -- is what was rejected by the heretics as the "traditions of men" NOT the Scriptures themselves or the apostles! Hence, Webster is incorrect and Gallegos nailed another one! Finally, a no ad hominem argument from me!

Athanasius on Saints, Fathers, Teachers, Tradition

Romans 45 wrote,

Quote: If this is not the case, please show me another instance where Athanasius uses the word "saints" to refer to the fathers?

Thanks again for the reply. There are several places in his overall writings where Athanasius uses both Fathers and "saints" to refer to the orthodox Fathers/saints who interpreted Scripture correctly -- i.e. in the orthodox fashion, etc.

We are going to have to agree to disagree on Festal Letter 2.6 but I do enjoy the board since there are lots of intelligent folks here. In the passage 2.6 in question, if you and Webster are correct then Athanasius is saying the heretics REJECTED the Scriptures themselves as "the traditions of men" which they did not do. Also, I never used the term "oral tradition" regarding Festal Letter 2 and I agree there is no reference to an exclusive "oral tradition" independent of Scripture in Athanasius' writings...

There are several examples of Saints = Fathers = Teachers = orthodox interpreters of Scripture in Athanasius' writings, for example....

Quote: "If we now consider the OBJECT of that FAITH which we Christians HOLD, and using it as a RULE, apply ourselves, as the Apostle teaches to the reading of inspired Scripture. For Christ's enemies, being ignorant of this OBJECT, have wandered from the way of truth, and have stumbled on a stone of stumbling, thinking otherwise than they should think" Orat 3,28

Object = the orthodox or correct interpretation of Scripture on the Trinity, etc -- which according to Athanasius is what the heretics rejected or were ignorant of

Quote: "Had Christ enemies thus dwelt on these thoughts, and recognized the ECCLESIASTICAL SCOPE and an ANCHOR for the faith, they would NOT have made SHIPWRECK of the faith..." Orat 3,58

Ecclesiaistical scope = the orthodox or correct interpretation of Scripture on the Trinity, etc -- again, the heretics rejected this and made their faith shipwreck

Quote: "We are content with the fact that this is not the teaching of the Catholic Church, nor did the Fathers hold this." Epis 59

Fathers = Church Fathers, the "orthodox Fathers" who correctly taught the Catholic Faith

Quote: "But our faith is right, and starts from the teaching of the Apostles and TRADITION of the FATHERS, being confirmed both by the New Testament and the Old." Epis 60

Tradition of the Fathers = the orthodox or correct interpretation of Scripture according to the Church Fathers, the "orthodox Fathers"

Quote: "But after him (the devil) and with him are all inventors of unlawful heresies, who indeed refer to the Scriptures, BUT DO NOT hold such opinions as the SAINTS HAVE HANDED DOWN, and receiving them as the traditions of men, err, because they DO NOT rightly KNOW THEM nor their power" Festal Letter 2.6

The "disputed" passage in question -- to me it is clear that Saints = orthodox saints or Fathers, and their opinions are the orthodox or correct interpretations of the Scriptures rejected by the heretics, etc NOT the Scriptures themselves since the heretics did not reject the Scriptures themselves, they reject the orthodox interpretation of the Scriptures handed down by the saints or Fathers

Quote: "...and in dizziness about TRUTH, are full set upon accusing the COUNCIL, let them tell us what are the Scriptures from what they have learned, or WHO is the SAINT by whom they have BEEN TAUGHT..." De Decretis 18

Saint = Fathers, or orthodox teachers, I hope you agree here at least he is not asking "who is the Apostle by whom they have been taught" meaning the original twelve apostles -- Athanasius asks what are the Scriptures, OR Who is the Saint (i.e. both Scripture and Tradition), etc

Quote: "Scarcely, however, did they begin to speak, when they were condemned, and one differed from another; then perceiving the straits in which their heresy lay, they remained dumb, and by their silence confessed the disgrace which came upon their heterodoxy. On this the Bishops, having negatived the terms they had invented, published against them the SOUND and ECCLESIASTICAL faith....And what is strange indeed, Eusebius of Caesarea in Palestine, who had denied the day before, but afterward subscribed, sent to his Church a letter, saying that this was the CHURCH'S faith and the TRADITION of the FATHERS" De Decretis 3

Tradition of the Fathers = the orthodox interpretation of the Scriptures, or the "Church's Faith"

Quote: "...and it is seemingly and most irreligious when Scripture contains such images, to form ideas concerning our Lord from others which are neither in Scripture, nor have any religious bearing. THEREFORE let them tell us FROM WHAT TEACHER OR BY WHAT TRADITION they derived these notions concerning the Savior?...But they seem to me to have a wrong understanding of this passage also; for it has a RELIGIOUS and VERY ORTHODOX sense, which had they understood, they would not have blasphemed the Lord of glory" De Decretis 13

From What Teacher or By What Tradition = the orthodox teachers, the Church Fathers who handed down (tradition) the orthodox interpretation of the Scriptures, etc

Quote: "For it is right and meet thus to feel, and to maintain a good conscience toward the FATHERS, if we be not spurious children, but have received the TRADITIONS from them, and the LESSONS of religion at their hands" De Synodis 47

"Such then, as we confess and believe, being the SENSE of the FATHERS..." De Synodis 48

"...but do you, remaining on the foundation of the Apostles, and holding fast the TRADITIONS of the FATHERS, pray that now at length all strife and rivalry may cease and the futile questions of the heretics may be condemned..." De Synodis 54

Three more examples of the tradition of the Fathers = the orthodox or correct interpretation of the Scriptures handed down in the Catholic Church.

So there is no doubt Athanasius uses saints for "apostles" or prophets or the biblical authors, but also saint is used for "Fathers" who handed down (tradition) the correct interpretation of the Scripture. That is how Festal Letter 2.6 reads as above -- you and Webster can only be correct on 2.6 IF the heretics rejected the Scriptures THEMSELVES as "the traditions of men." That cannot be correct since Athanasius says they "indeed refer to the Scriptures." What they reject is not the Scriptures BUT the orthodox or correct INTERPRETATION of the Scriptures handed down in the Church by the saints, the Fathers, the orthodox teachers.

Do "saints" and "Fathers" = apostles?

Thanks Romans45, I wanted to quote this much,

Quote: [substitute] "hold such opinions as the saints have handed down" with "hold to the clear meaning of the words the Apostles have handed down in Scripture"

Ah ha! But "meaning" implies interpretation. You are wrong since Athanasius simply says the heretics did not "hold such opinions as the saints have handed down, and receiving them as the traditions of men, err..." If saints = apostles here and Athanasius means "the Scriptures" then Athanasius is saying the heretics did not "hold such opinions [i.e. teachings] as the apostles have handed down in the Scriptures..." That is exactly how Webster (wrongly) understands this. His whole argument is that "saints = apostles" therefore Athanasius is saying the heretics "did not hold to the Scriptures as handed down by the apostles...."

Webster writes,

Quote: "Roman apologists jump to the conclusion that Athanasius' use of the term saints here refers to Church fathers who preceded him. They assume that he is acknowledging their authority in handing down right opinions or right teaching. The term handed down is another way of saying tradition, so they use this statement to support the contention that the fathers looked to the Church and her tradition as the ultimate authority over Scripture." (Webster, Holy Scripture vol 2, page 60)

Webster has summarized the Catholic position here, although I would not agree with "ultimate authority OVER Scripture" but that Athanasius indeed refers to the orthodox Fathers or saints as authoritative interpreters OF Scripture. They are not OVER Scripture but must be read ALONG WITH Scripture to understand its "clear meaning" in your words above. That is demonstrated throughout the writings of Athanasius.

And indeed St. Athanasius is so clear on that point in other places (see my post Athanasius on Saints, Fathers, Teachers, Tradition for several examples) there is no doubt that is his meaning here on "opinions of the saints" that the heretics rejected as "the traditions of men." HOWEVER, Webster continues,

Quote: "But, as the context reveals, in his use of the word saints, Athanasius is not referring to Church fathers but to the writers of Scripture. He calls them saints and Fathers, and refers to their writings as the apostolic tradition. We are to be followers of the saints, that is, of the apostles, by following what they have written." (Webster, vol 2, page 60)

I forgot to mention that Webster has gone even farther than you have. He says [seemingly that] whenever we see the term "saints" and "Fathers" in Athanasius we should interpret that as meaning "the apostles" and the Scriptures. Is that the case in my posts on Saints, Fathers, Teachers, Tradition?

11/28/2001 11:27:16 pm

RE: You abuse me like you do Athanasius

Quote: As it is clear to see, I’m asking P to show where in this letter Athanasius refers to the fathers as “saints”.

Yes, I understand your challenge -- but I already conceded Athanasius indeed refers to the apostles and prophets as "saints" here in Festal Letter 2 and elsewhere. However, I have shown Athanasius also refers to saints as the Fathers -- the orthodox Fathers who correctly interpreted Scripture.

SO YES, in this one place in Festal Letter 2.6 Athanasius means NOT "apostles handing down the Scriptures" but "Fathers" or orthodox teachers handing down the correct INTERPRETATION of the Scriptures. And YES, Athanasius refers to the Fathers later on in 2.7 as "Fathers."

If saints in 2.6 means "apostles handing down the Scriptures" then you are having Athanasius say the heretics REJECT the apostles and REJECT the Scriptures as "the traditions of men." And that makes no sense since Athanasius says the heretics indeed "refer to the Scriptures." They did not reject the Scriptures themselves, but the correct or orthodox interpretatation of the Scriptures as handed down in the Church (the opinions of the saints, the Fathers, the orthodox teachers of the Scriptures). That is the proper way to understand him.

The word "saints" in Athanasius

This was a quick "online study" of the word "saint" or "saints" in the writings of St. Athanasius. He has a wide use of the term meaning (but not limited to)

(1) the orthodox Fathers or orthodox teachers or bishops of the Catholic Church

(2) Christian believers in general

(3) the NT apostles or OT prophets and others (not limited to biblical writers only)

(4) the "saints who are in heaven" (the exalted saints)

These writings can be found from Volume IV on St. Athanasius here

www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-04/TOC.htm

Saints = orthodox Fathers or bishops, with confessors, martyrs (On the Councils of Arm/Sel 10)

Quote: "Now the time of these transactions was when the council was assembled at Milan, the presbyters of the Roman Church being also present. But knowing at the same time that Constantine of worthy memory had with all accuracy and deliberation published the Faith then drawn up; when he had been baptized by the hands of men, and had departed to the place which was his due, (we think it) unseemly to make a subsequent innovation and to despise so many saints, confessors, martyrs, who compiled and drew up this decree; who moreover have continued to hold in all matters according to the ancient law Church; whose faith God has imparted even to the times of your reign through our Master Jesus Christ, through whom also it is yours to reign and rule over the world in our day." (on the Councils of Arm/Sel 10)

Saint = orthodox Fathers (On Arm/Sel 13)

Quote: "And who but must condemn the fickleness of Eudoxius, Acacius, and their fellows, who sacrifice the honour due to their own fathers to partizanship and patronage of the Ariomaniacs? for what confidence can be placed in their acts, if the acts of their fathers be undone? or how call they them fathers and themselves successors, if they set about impeaching their judgment? and especially what can Acacius say of his own master, Eusebius, who not only gave his subscription in the Nicene Council, but even in a letter signified to his flock, that that was true faith, which the Council had declared? for, if he explained himself in that letter in his own way, yet he did not contradict the Council's terms, but even charged it upon the Arians, that their position that the Son was not before His generation, was not even consistent with His being before Mary. What then will they proceed to teach the people who are under their teaching? that the Fathers erred? and how are they themselves to be trusted by those, whom they teach to disobey their Teachers? and with what eyes too will they look upon the sepulchres of the Fathers whom they now name heretics? And why do they defame the Valentinians, Phrygians, and Manichees, yet give the name of saint to those whom they themselves suspect of making parallel statements? or how can they any longer be Bishops, if they were ordained by persons whom they accuse of heresy?" (On the Councils of Arm/Sel 13)

Saint = orthodox Father or teacher (De Decretis 18)

Quote: 18. Now Eusebius and his fellows were at the former period examined at great length, and convicted themselves, as I said before; on this they subscribed; and after this change of mind they kept in quiet and retirement; but since the present party, in the fresh arrogance of irreligion, and in dizziness about the truth, are full set upon accusing the Council, let them tell us what are the sort of Scriptures from which they have learned, or who is the Saint by whom they have been taught, that they have heaped together the phrases, 'out of nothing,' and 'He was not before His generation,' and 'once. He was not,' and 'alterable,' and 'pre-existence,' and 'at the will;' which are their fables in mockery of the Lord. (De Decretis 18)

Saints = orthodox Fathers (De Decretis 22,23)

Athanasius here very clearly equates the orthodox "Fathers" with the orthodox "Saints"

Quote: Therefore let no one be startled on hearing that the Son of God is from the Essence of the Father; but rather let him accept the explanation of the Fathers, who in more explicit but equivalent language have for 'from God' written 'of the essence'... (De Decretis 22)

Athanasius continues in De Decretis 23... here "the Saints" = "the Fathers"

Quote: 23. Again, the illustration of the Light and the Radiance has this meaning. For the Saints have not said that the Word was related to God as fire kindled from the heat of the sun, which is commonly put out again, for this is an external work and a creature of its author, but they all preach of Him as Radiance, thereby to signify His being from the essence, proper and indivisible, and His oneness with the Father. This also will secure His true unchangableness and immutability; for how can these be His, unless He be proper Offspring of the Father's essence? (De Decretis 23)

Saints = Christian believers in general (Festal Letter 1.5)

Quote: "For thus the Holy Ghost, describing sinners and their food, referred to the devil when He said, 'I have given him to be meat to the people of Ethiopia.' For this is the food of sinners. And as our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, being heavenly bread, is the food of the saints, according to this; 'Except ye eat My flesh, and drink My blood;' so is the devil the food of the impure, and of those who do nothing which is of the light, but work the deeds of darkness. Therefore, in order to withdraw and turn them from vices, He commands them to be nourished with the food of virtue; namely, humbleness of mind, lowliness to endure humiliations, the acknowledgment of God. For not only does such a fast as this obtain pardon for souls, but being kept holy, it prepares the saints, and raises them above the earth." (Festal Letter 1.5)

Saints = Christian believers (Festal Letter 7.4)

Quote: "Therefore, although wicked men press forward to keep the feast, and as at a feast praise God, and intrude into the Church of the saints, yet God expostulates, saying to the sinner, 'Why dost thou talk of My ordinances?' And the gentle Spirit rebukes them, saying, 'Praise is not comely in the mouth of a sinners. 'Neither hath sin any place in common with the praise of God; for the sinner has a mouth speaking perverse things, as the Proverb saith, 'The mouth of the wicked answereth evil things.' For how is it possible for us to praise God with an impure mouth? since things which are contrary to each other cannot coexist. For what communion has righteousness with iniquity? or, what fellowship is there between light and darkness? So exclaims Paul, a minister of the Gospel. Thus it is that sinners, and all those who are aliens from the Catholic Church, heretics, and schismatics, since they are excluded from glorifying (God) with the saints, cannot properly even continue observers of the feast." (Festal Letter 7.4)

Saints = OT prophets and others that Paul speaks about (To the Bishops of Egypt 21)

Quote: "Thus Judas was degraded from the Apostolical office, not because he sacrificed to idols, but because he proved a traitor; and Hymenaeus and Alexander fell away not by betaking themselves to the service of idols, but because they 'made shipwreck concerning the faith.' On the other hand, the Patriarch Abraham received the crown, not because he suffered death, but because he was faithful unto God; and the other Saints, of whom Paul speaks, Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephtha, David and Samuel, and the rest, were not made perfect by the shedding of their blood, but by faith they were justified; and to this day they are the objects of our admiration, as being ready even to suffer death for piety towards the Lord." (Athanasius To the Bishops of Egypt 21)

Saints = the exalted "saints who are in heaven" (Festal Letter 11.1)

Quote: "The blessed Paul, being girt about with every virtue, and called faithful of the Lord-for he was conscious of nothing in himself but what was a virtue and a praise, or what was in harmony with love and godliness-clave to these things more and more, and was carried up even to heavenly places, and was borne to Paradise; to the end that, as he surpassed the conversation of men, he should be exalted above men. And when he descended, he preached to every man; 'We know in part, and we prophesy in part; here I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.' For, in truth, he was known to those saints who are in heaven, as their fellow-citizen." (Festal Letter 11.1)

11/29/2001 3:04:41 am

New Advent Collection of the Fathers

Back to Apologetics Articles

Back to Home Page