The Rule of Scripture ("Sola Scriptura" as Luther and Calvin called it)

[Hentenza]

We have ONE Head of the Church, Jesus Christ.

We do not add to Jesus Christ.

We sing at every Orthodox Divine Liturgy worldwide:

"One is Holy, One is Lord, Jesus Christ, to the Glory of God the Father, Amen."

Good. My church and many others have ONE Head and it is Jesus Christ. We do not add anything to Jesus Christ. You just agreed with solus Christus.

Now, do you agree that we are saved by only the grace of God?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

Is this a sort of mysticism, to say that there are 5 "alones" ?

Thekla-



1. I invite and encourage you to read the opening post.



2. The praxis of the Rule of Scripture was often called "sola scriptura" by both Luther and later Calvin because IN EMBRACING A RULE IN NORMING, both embraced one thing - Scripture. If one thing is embrace, then "sola" applies. Often in civil societies, in the judication of behaviors, we embrace as our norm the law - this practice is often called "The Rule of Law" since law is the one norma normans. Of course, all this is predicated on the embrace of accountability and of course there is arbitration often needed, but the NORM, the RULE, the CANON for such is the law (and only such), ergo "THE Rule (singular) of Law." We could call this praxis, Solus Legis.


3. This thread is not about any other topic. But yes - some Protestants also speak of A DOCTRINE (singular) which is expressed by "Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide." This is ONE DOCTRINE, but we can (and do) speak of those 3 parts of the inseparable, united WHOLE. That's doctrine. Yes, we think it's all because of God's grace (and nothing else - sola applies), we think Jesus is the only savior (and no one else - sola applies) and we think we appropriate this by faith (and nothing else - sola applies). That is a doctrine. And yes, ALL THAT IS ANOTHER TOPIC FOR ANOTHER DAY, THREAD AND FORUM (as you know). This one is about a PRAXIS. It's the Rule of Scripture, a praxis Luther and Calvin (and many today) call Sola Scriptura.


Again, read the opening post. I think it will help your understanding enormously. Thanks!

We have ONE Head of the Church, Jesus Christ.

Everyone agrees (including Mormons). Now, let's return to the topic of this thread.



Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[Thekla]

Good. My church and many others have ONE Head and it is Jesus Christ. We do not add anything to Jesus Christ. You just agreed with solus Christus.

Now, do you agree that we are saved by only the grace of God?

That seems to me to be a curious statement, as it is simply that we are saved by God.

 

[heymikey80]

Of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, I have read the Cathechetical lectures.
Of St. Gregory of Nyssa, his writing on the Lord's Prayer, on the Beatitudes, on the Life of Moses (a classic of growth in the spiritual life, and of apophaticism), and various other works.
I have read other fathers of this era as well; one must be aware in reading that the ground as well as terminology is often not familiar. For example, St. Basil the Great (St. Gregory of Nyssa's brother) defines dogma as what is received and practiced within the Church vs. kerygma, that which is announced also outside of the Church).

And yet you have offered nothing to respond in terms of what they wrote, to compare with ... what they wrote.

I'm not gonna trust you, no. I'm going to listen to your exposition.

Yes, this is true; and to "know them" we must know more than the words they record, but also the particular rhetorical style in which they write, their particular terminology, their voice, their ithos, their era, their living out, their worship.

Of which you've brought no citations, historical data, information ... evidence.

That's not something to base a conclusion on. That's a blind faith.

Christianity is a faith, not an interpretive method, not is it an ideology. Though academic approaches may be used within Christianity, academic approaches are not Christianity and in fact, each of the heresies was the result in part of the intellect claiming power over faith and dogma (in St. Basil's usage).

Yeah. So? We're establishing facts, we're not imbuing praxis. That's impossible to do with words, according to you.

Yet all that can happen here is words.

So making a comment on the tautology doesn't make any progress.

So the question becomes, is this for you a matter of intellectual exercise, or accuracy?

Certainly you must know that basing one's entire view of an author's writing on a few decontextualized lines has no credibility in any sort of analysis.

Both.

It's a poor argument to respond to a substantial objection -- a clear citation of someone's writings -- with an interpretive response with no cited base in fact.

But withholding facts that you have access to -- that would be interesting, if it were reasonable to expect it to have occurred. Maybe you do not have the sources at hand. Maybe you're working from a memory that requires refreshing before you'll commit to it.

On the other hand, alleging something's base or subversive in the opinion of someone else, that's a serious error. It takes the form of an accusation of the method. But my method is clear. "I wait for you to continue." (Camus) Yet if there's no continuation, "I return to my beginning." (Camus) There's little else to do with no basis in fact. Reality is factual. A basis in fact is an important place to start to discern the truth of a matter. That's where I stand. There appear no places to stand elsewhere.

In your insistence, what exactly is the standard you embrace ?

Publication of ideas. If you have none to make public, it's a futile response.

So far, it's been a futile response to hand-wave that somewhere in writings TBD these guys were inconsistent with what they wrote.

Even in Scriptural interpretation, such a standard is debased.

No, it is based on a responding argument that re-examines the plain argument. When there is no reason to reject a plain reading, the plain reading is the preferred one. Otherwise we end up with Origen and indeed, Camping, allegorizing the text and ending up driven into a ditch.

Reality is the context of Scripture, as it is the context of Cyril and Gregory. So far the plain reading of them all favors sola scriptura. What information do you bring to say differently?

Do we note that Christ said that He had no place to lay his head, and form from this that He was really just a lazy whiner ?

We note that Christ said He had no place to lay His head, and realize from the context of an itinerant rabbi & prophet that He was expressing a reasonable typical situation, often sleeping under the stars, without a characteristic location to sleep.

Do you note something substantial about Cyril and Gregory that qualifies their statements? Because writing is substantial.

 

[Thekla]

HeyMikey,

if there is no doctrine of Sola Scriptura in existence at the time, nor espoused by Cyril and Gregory, what sort of sound bite in text do you think exists to refute something that does not exist ?

Why don't you read them ?

 

[heymikey80]

if there is no doctrine of Sola Scriptura in existence at the time, nor espoused by Cyril and Gregory, what sort of sound bite in text do you think exists to refute something that does not exist ?

Why don't you read them ?

If there is a doctrine of sola scriptura in existence at the time, as cited by CaliforniaJosiah for both Cyril and Gregory, what sort of citation in text do you think exists to refute what they've already stated?

Why don't you find them?

Maybe by now we should be asking, Why all the effort spent talking about the absence of evidence? The presence of evidence for what they said, is cited.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c.310-386):

For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.

(Catechetical Lectures, IV:17, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers [Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983 reprint], Second Series, Vol. VII, p. 23.)



St. Gregory of Nyssa (330-395):

...we are not entitled to such license, namely, of affirming whatever we please. For we make Sacred Scripture the rule and the norm of every doctrine. Upon that we are obliged to fix our eyes, and we approve only whatever can be brought into harmony with the intent of these writings.

(On the Soul and the Resurrection, quoted in Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971], p. 50.)



St. Gregory of Nyssa:

Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.

(On the Holy Trinity, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. V, p. 327.)

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.



St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c.310-386):

For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.

(Catechetical Lectures, IV:17, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers [Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983 reprint], Second Series, Vol. VII, p. 23.)



St. Gregory of Nyssa (330-395):

...we are not entitled to such license, namely, of affirming whatever we please. For we make Sacred Scripture the rule and the norm of every doctrine. Upon that we are obliged to fix our eyes, and we approve only whatever can be brought into harmony with the intent of these writings.

(On the Soul and the Resurrection, quoted in Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971], p. 50.)



St. Gregory of Nyssa:

Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.

(On the Holy Trinity, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. V, p. 327.)




.

nor espoused by Cyril and Gregory, what sort of sound bite in text do you think exists to refute something that does not exist

AGAIN, Thekla, you have made it repeatedly clear that you disagree with what these esteemed Orthodox Church Fathers herein wrote.
GOT IT. UNDERSTOOD. POINT NOTED.

The quotes nonetheless affirm the practice and the definition given in the opening post - whether you agree with what they wrote or not.



(IF you kindly would, please also read post 202)




.

 

[Fotina]

If NOTHING but Jesus exists in your denomination, nothing else matters, then you have no interest in this topic - because truth/correctness in dogmas doesn't matter to you. But SOME disagree with you - and thus it DOES matter to us if what is taught is true. Perhaps you'd like to leave this whole discussion (and this thread) to those who think other issues matter? If you don't care about teachings, worship, etc. why do you care about how Christians determine whether they are true/correct/valid and what norma normans they may use? Obviously, you don't.

I did not say or imply any of what you accuse above and no where said or implied the bolded. In fact my interest in the op is totally the opposite--Truth.

Why don't you address the points to the op instead of baseless rant?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I did not say or imply any of what you accuse above and no where said or implied the bolded. In fact my interest in the op is totally the opposite--Truth.

Why don't you address the points to the op instead of baseless rant?

The opening post is mine. Why do you think I'm not discussing it?

Which is it? All that matters is Jesus or other things matter, too? IF other things matter, then does it matter to you if they are true/valid/correct? IF so, then what norma normans do you suggest the world's 2.2 billion people embraced for the norming of such? IF you think that's "Jesus" then again, ALL Christians affirm that Jesus is the "Head of the Church" and I strongly suspect that ALL holding ALL positions as dogma sincerely affirm that Jesus agrees with them, that "Jesus is on my side." Not much of a rule/canon/norma normans as we evaluate disputed dogmas among us, IMO. IF you know of something MORE inspired by God, MORE reliable, MORE objectively knowable (more than black and white words all literate persons can read), MORE unalterable by all, MORE historically embraced (before 1400 BC), MORE ecumenically embraced than is Scripture, then present it.






.

 

[heymikey80]

I did not say or imply any of what you accuse above and no where said or implied the bolded. In fact my interest in the op is totally the opposite--Truth.

Why don't you address the points to the op instead of baseless rant?

1. Maybe because plenty of others also engage in baseless rants. Exhibit A above.

Although, clear citations have been provided, so the baseless rant's not attributable to CJ. His rant, if you could call it that given the much more emotional baseless rants of this thread, is calm and focused by comparison.

And it has a basis in Scripture and the ECFs. Interesting the objections to it emerging 1500 years later.

2. Or maybe because he is the source of the OP -- and so he would be responding to responses.

 

[katherine2001]

Of course we refer to Scripture, and of course Scripture is extraordinarily important.

In fact, in my experience discussing Sola Scriptura here, it is often the conclusion of Sola Scriptura adherents that to deny SS as defined means that one does not value Scripture.

It is an either/or dichotimizing - it seems to be a way of thinking among SS adherents that refutes any sense of moderation (its Scripture is the thing or nothing) and the reality that Christianity is a way of living.

What of Christ, what of worship, what of faith, what of the spiritual struggle, the spiritual life, what of prayer, what of what was received, and more ?

All these need to be ignored in order to posit the "Scripture only or nothing"; imo, this is symptomatic of "textism".

"And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.

Even in the verse you cite from Paul, it is clear that it is in the "power energized" that is the core. And indeed, here he undermines the role of human wisdom to refocus them on what is received from God. Is what is received from God only a text which we intellectually analyze, without the living ? Can we understand this text through intellect alone ? Perhaps, but then we risk by full resort to the intellect that the heart of the Scripture is not known (and recall that 'rightly divide' indicates to cut through to the heart as it were).

! Personally, I have found that God's wisdom is often the total opposite of human wisdom. St. Paul said that God's wisdom often seems like foolishness to us, and he was totally right about that. I think that is why there are parts of the NT where Christ was not telling a parable where many Sola Scriptura supporters will say that He couldn't have meant what He said literally (which would include all the passages about consuming the Body and Blood of Christ). It goes totally against our human logic. But God is so much bigger than us in wisdom, energies, abilities, etc. When we try to make Him fit within what we can understand, we put Him in a box and tie His hands, so to speak. We have to be willing to accept what Christ said, even though we don't understand it. If Christ said that I must eat His flesh and drink His blood and makes the connection that this is done with bread and wine at the Last Supper, then that is good enough for me. I don't have to know how He does it. His abilities are way above my abilities. How will anyone of us truly come to understand God. If I could understand God, then He would no longer be God.

I also find it interesting that many believe that man (and the material world for that matter) is totally depraved, but then totally trust their intellect. How can intellect not be affected (and depraved) if we are totally depraved?

 

[Thekla]

And yet you have offered nothing to respond in terms of what they wrote, to compare with ... what they wrote.

I'm not gonna trust you, no. I'm going to listen to your exposition.

I didn't ask you to trust me, I offered additional information.

Of which you've brought no citations, historical data, information ... evidence.

I don't have a (as I said) "sound bite quote" ready for you in mind.

You are capable of reading, and should read these authors further in order to make the assessment for yourself.

You must know that disembodied quotations are not considered viable support in any form of analysis.

Why would another disembodied quote be even requested by you?

That's not something to base a conclusion on. That's a blind faith.

Do you have much experience in literary or historical textual analysis ? With the concepts of "voice", of broader context (for example the particular rhetorical conceits of the era, the historical context and events of the time, understanding text based in part on the supposed audience addressed by said text, etc.) ?

Yeah. So? We're establishing facts, we're not imbuing praxis. That's impossible to do with words, according to you.

Yet all that can happen here is words.

So making a comment on the tautology doesn't make any progress.

As you seem to oppose what I say, do you mean to espouse an entirely intellectual basis for "understanding faith" ?

I'm not quite sure how your response is related to what I've stated, nor Christianity, etc.

Both.

It's a poor argument to respond to a substantial objection -- a clear citation of someone's writings -- with an interpretive response with no cited base in fact.

So why do you just accept that these two quotations are the full representation of the thought of these two authors

But withholding facts that you have access to -- that would be interesting, if it were reasonable to expect it to have occurred. Maybe you do not have the sources at hand. Maybe you're working from a memory that requires refreshing before you'll commit to it.

I'm not going to go searching, as this would be time consuming. Further, I would not expect you to just accept a few quotations from me as "full, incontrovertible evidence".

On the other hand, alleging something's base or subversive in the opinion of someone else, that's a serious error. It takes the form of an accusation of the method. But my method is clear. "I wait for you to continue." (Camus) Yet if there's no continuation, "I return to my beginning." (Camus) There's little else to do with no basis in fact. Reality is factual. A basis in fact is an important place to start to discern the truth of a matter. That's where I stand. There appear no places to stand elsewhere.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, except that your response to what I have said seems to be rather emotional, though stated in intellectual terms.
So why Camus ?

Publication of ideas. If you have none to make public, it's a futile response.

To claim that two isolated quotations fully represent an author's thought is ludicrous - yet you accept two quotations as fully representative with nary a peep, and reserve your criticism for my attempt to point out that the use of these quotations out of context does not represent a use within viable standards.
This is a double standard on your part.

I raised a problem with standards, and you attack whilst embracing the opposite of this standard by claiming that these two quotes are representative unless more "disembodied quotes" are provided.
So far, it's been a futile response to hand-wave that somewhere in writings TBD these guys were inconsistent with what they wrote.

No, it is based on a responding argument that re-examines the plain argument. When there is no reason to reject a plain reading, the plain reading is the preferred one. Otherwise we end up with Origen and indeed, Camping, allegorizing the text and ending up driven into a ditch.

How can you know if this is a clear reading when both wrote copious amounts beyond these two quotes, nor is the original language nor context even provided

Reality is the context of Scripture, as it is the context of Cyril and Gregory. So far the plain reading of them all favors sola scriptura. What information do you bring to say differently?

That your standard for the acceptance of these few sentences with no context from as wholly representative of their thought is a degraded standard.

We note that Christ said He had no place to lay His head, and realize from the context of an itinerant rabbi & prophet that He was expressing a reasonable typical situation, often sleeping under the stars, without a characteristic location to sleep.

So indeed, you do acknowledge that context matters, yet accept two decontextualized quotes as fully representative.

Do you note something substantial about Cyril and Gregory that qualifies their statements? Because writing is substantial.

I think you should read them.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

! Personally, I have found that God's wisdom is often the total opposite of human wisdom. St. Paul said that God's wisdom often seems like foolishness to us

So, should the norma normans be the "wisdom of men" or the inscripturated words of God?





.

 

[Thekla]

If there is a doctrine of sola scriptura in existence at the time, as cited by CaliforniaJosiah for both Cyril and Gregory, what sort of citation in text do you think exists to refute what they've already stated?

Why don't you find them?

Maybe by now we should be asking, Why all the effort spent talking about the absence of evidence? The presence of evidence for what they said, is cited.

Why would I provide disembodied quotes when I have stated that disembodied quotes are not a viable for representing the thought of an author ?

 

[Thekla]

All right, where is this in Scripture ?
Here's your disembodied quote:

"Then, we commemorate also those who have fallen asleep before us: first the patriarchs, the prophets, the apostles, the martyrs, so that God may receive our petition through their prayers and intercessions."
from the 5th Mystagogical Catechism of St. Cyril of Jerusalem.

Is this doctrine from Sola Scriptura ?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

All right, where is this in Scripture ?

Practices are rarely TAUGHT in Scripture. They are more likely to be exampled or illustrated. They NEED not be (or we'd not be permitted to be posting here - there is no verse "Post on the Internet" and nor is there an example of such), but sometimes they are. I have listed some 50+ times just from Jesus alone. I could give examples from the Apostles, too. And of course, we OFTEN find things normed by the expression "it is written" in the OT, too. But again, a practice can be sound even if not specifically taught or exampled in Scripture. IF you know of a rule/canon/norma normans that is MORE inspired by God, MORE reliable, MORE objectively knowable (than the black and white printed words of God all literate persons can read), MORE historically embraced (before 1400 BC), MORE ecumenically embraced, MORE exampled by Jesus (than the 50+ times He used Scripture normatively) than is Scripture, then please share precisely what that is and reveal that it better meets these things.


Frankly, I agree with these clear statements:


St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c.310-386):

For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.

(Catechetical Lectures, IV:17, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers [Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983 reprint], Second Series, Vol. VII, p. 23.)



St. Gregory of Nyssa (330-395):

...we are not entitled to such license, namely, of affirming whatever we please. For we make Sacred Scripture the rule and the norm of every doctrine. Upon that we are obliged to fix our eyes, and we approve only whatever can be brought into harmony with the intent of these writings.

(On the Soul and the Resurrection, quoted in Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971], p. 50.)



St. Gregory of Nyssa:

Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.

(On the Holy Trinity, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. V, p. 327.)




Thank you!


Blessings!


- Josiah




.

 

[Thekla]

Practices are rarely TAUGHT in Scripture. They are more likely to be exampled or illustrated. They NEED not be (or we'd not be permitted to be posting here - there is no verse "Post on the Internet" and nor is there an example of such), but sometimes they are. I have listed some 50+ times just from Jesus alone. I could give examples from the Apostles, too. And of course, we OFTEN find things normed by the expression "it is written" in the OT, too. But again, a practice can be sound even if not specifically taught or exampled in Scripture. IF you know of a rule/canon/norma normans that is MORE inspired by God, MORE reliable, MORE objectively knowable (than the black and white printed words of God all literate persons can read), MORE historically embraced (before 1400 BC), MORE ecumenically embraced, MORE exampled by Jesus (than the 50+ times He used Scripture normatively) than is Scripture, then please share precisely what that is and reveal that it better meets these things.


Frankly, I agree with these clear statements:


St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c.310-386):

For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.

(Catechetical Lectures, IV:17, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers [Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983 reprint], Second Series, Vol. VII, p. 23.)



St. Gregory of Nyssa (330-395):

...we are not entitled to such license, namely, of affirming whatever we please. For we make Sacred Scripture the rule and the norm of every doctrine. Upon that we are obliged to fix our eyes, and we approve only whatever can be brought into harmony with the intent of these writings.

(On the Soul and the Resurrection, quoted in Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971], p. 50.)



St. Gregory of Nyssa:

Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.

(On the Holy Trinity, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. V, p. 327.)




Thank you!


Blessings!


- Josiah




.

The praxis is based on belief which is iterated as doctrine.
Praxis is the living of doctrine.

 

[heymikey80]

I didn't ask you to trust me, I offered additional information.

I appreciate the interpretation, but it doesn't offer a whole lot more than an opinion.

I don't have a (as I said) "sound bite quote" ready for you in mind.

You are capable of reading, and should read these authors further in order to make the assessment for yourself.

You must know that disembodied quotations are not considered viable support in any form of analysis.

Why would another disembodied quote be even requested by you?

Why would you think a citation would be a disembodied quote?

If you really require that I engage in reading all of Cyril of Jerusalem, then I would reasonably expect you to engage in reading all of John Calvin before making another allegation about how or why I have said something.

Fair enough. I start. You start.

Do you have much experience in literary or historical textual analysis ? With the concepts of "voice", of broader context (for example the particular rhetorical conceits of the era, the historical context and events of the time, understanding text based in part on the supposed audience addressed by said text, etc.) ?

Do you have any actual information to bring up, or do you just enjoy attacking people?

Such actions are not made in a proper spirit of this forum. If you have nothing to say substantial, a continued attack would be unnecessarily abusive.

The fact is that either Cyril said something or he didn't, and you're not accounting for why you can dismiss his statement.

And the additional fact is that if I were to do such a thing, I would be accused of being disingenuous. So why would you get the right to do something I wouldn't?

As you seem to oppose what I say, do you mean to espouse an entirely intellectual basis for "understanding faith" ?

As you seem to want to force opposition to be opposed, do you mean to continue to espouse opposition without any basis in fact?

So far there has been no pinpoint nor even a general reaction to Cyril other than, "Oh, he must not have meant what he actually wrote."

I've waited a few days to pontificate on a conclusion, because I'm reluctant to do so when the opposed position has no evidence. I'd rather wait for them to actually have time to pull out the books and come up with those facts that would actually point out the problem with understanding Cyril plainly. Those facts have to be facts though. They can't be inferences, or generalizations, or unbased assertions.

They're facts or they're not real.

The end result of this thread is that these assertions aren't real. Nothing's been brought to oppose Cyril's thrust of argument.

I would and continue to qualify this by, if someday someone would actually explain their difference with Cyril or Gregory's plain statement, then maybe an argument would resume instead of attacks.

"Address the post and not the poster." That's the rule of this forum. It's clear it's not being followed, but instead the motives of the poster are being challenged, as well as my own experience in linguistics and semantics.

The fact of the matter is that the words mean something, and the opposition has offered nothing but an attack on the credibility of those who actually made substantial citations.

It would be wise to respond to substance with substance. Otherwise the case against Cyril and Gregory becomes insubstantial. As it has.

 

[heymikey80]

Of course we refer to Scripture, and of course Scripture is extraordinarily important.

But not as authoritative as something else? Is experience more important than what God says is important?

As you've engaged in slighting the opposition again, which has not stated "Scripture only or nothing", I'll mark it out once again as engaging in what you're accusing your opposition of -- marginalization.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Frankly, I agree with these clear statements:


St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c.310-386):

For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.

(Catechetical Lectures, IV:17, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers [Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983 reprint], Second Series, Vol. VII, p. 23.)



St. Gregory of Nyssa (330-395):

...we are not entitled to such license, namely, of affirming whatever we please. For we make Sacred Scripture the rule and the norm of every doctrine. Upon that we are obliged to fix our eyes, and we approve only whatever can be brought into harmony with the intent of these writings.

(On the Soul and the Resurrection, quoted in Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971], p. 50.)



St. Gregory of Nyssa:

Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.

(On the Holy Trinity, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. V, p. 327.)




Thank you!


Blessings!


- Josiah


.

The praxis is based on belief which is iterated as doctrine.

No. A praxis is a practice. Driving (typically) on the right hand side of the road in the USA is a practice. No, it is not predicated on anything and it's not a dogma.


ALL practices are applications of something - to that I agree. Those that embrace this practice also embrace accountability, my experience is that those that don't do not. And those that accept the reliability of Scripture see soundness is embracing Scripture as the norma normans whereas those that rather view man's wisdom as more reliable are more likely to embrace that (if anything).

This is from the opening post:

Why Scripture?


In epistemology (regardless of discipline), the most sound norma normans is usually regarded as the most objective, most knowable by all and alterable by none, the most universally embraced by all parties as reliable for this purpose. My degree is in physics. Our norma normans is math and repeatable, objective, laborative evidence. Me saying, "what I think is the norm for what I think" will be instantly disregarded as evidential since it's both moot and circular. I would need to evidence and substantiate my view with a norm fully OUTSIDE and ABOVE and BEYOND me - something objective and knowable. This is what The Handbook of the Catholic Faith proclaims (page136), "The Bible is the very words of God and no greater assurance of credence can be given. The Bible was inspired by God. Exactly what does that mean? It means that God Himself is the Author of the Bible. God inspired the penmen to write as He wished.... the authority of the Bible flows directly from the Author of the Bible who is God; it is authoritative because the Author is." Those that accept the Rule of Scripture tend to agree. It's embrace as the most sound Rule flows from our common embrace of Scripture as the inscriptured words of God for God is the ultimate authority.

The embrace of Scripture as the written words of God is among the most historic, ecumenical, universal embraces in all of Christianity. We see this as reliable, dependable, authoritative - it as a very, very, broad and deep embrace as such - typically among all parties involved in the evaluation. (See the illustration above).

It is knowable by all and alterable by none. We can all see the very words of Romans 3:25 for example, they are black letters on a white page - knowable! And they are unalterable. I can't change what is on the page in Romans 3:25, nor can any other; what is is.

It is regarded as authoritative and reliable. It is knowable by all and alterable by none. Those that reject the Rule of Scripture in norming ( the RCC and LDS, for example ) have no better alternative (something more inspired, more inerrant, more ecumenically/historically embraced by all parties, more objectively knowable, more unalterable), they have no alternative that is clearly more sound for this purpose among us.

To simply embrace the teachings of self (sometimes denominational "tradition" or "confession") as the rule/canon is simply self looking in the mirror at self - self almost always reveals self. In communist Cuba, Castro agrees with Castro - it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Castro is correct. We need a Rule outside, beyond, above self.



Why do some so passionately reject it?


Those that reject the Rule of Scripture in norming tend to do so not because they reject Scripture or have an alternative that is MORE inerrant, MORE the inscripturated words of God, MORE reliable, MORE objectively knowable, MORE unalterable, MORE ecumenically embraced as authoriative. Rather the rejection tends to be because each rejects accountability (and thus norming and any norm in such) in the sole, singular, exclusive, particular, unique case of self alone. From The Handbook of the Catholic Faith (page 151), "When the Catholic is asked for the substantiation for his belief, the correct answer is: From the teaching authority. This authority consists of the bishops of The Catholic Church in connection with the Catholic Pope in Rome. The faithful are thus freed from the typically Protestant question of 'is it true' and instead rests in quiet confidence that whatever the Catholic Church teaches is the teaching of Jesus Himself since Jesus said, 'whoever hears you hears me'." The Catholic Church itself says in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (#87): Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”, The faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their [Catholic] pastors give them in different forms." IF self declares that self is unaccountable and that self is exempt from the issue of truthfulness, then the entire issue of norming (and the embraced norma normans in such) becomes irrelevant (for self). The issue has been changed from truth to power (claimed by self for self).

Again, if you have an alternative, something MORE inspired by God, MORE reliable, MORE objectively knowable (than the black and white inscripturated words of God all literate persons CAN read), MORE unalterable by all, MORE historically embraced (before 1400 BC), MORE ecumenically embraced than is Scripture, please present that and why it better meets those things.




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah





.