Biblical Exegesis explanation and discussion

[Hentenza]

"All" scripture, not "only" scripture.

What other scripture is there?

 

[Fervent]

I disagree.

All pre-Origen uses of the word speak to it as an act of vivification, not a theory of inspiration

Actually the primacy and holiness of scripture is well documented among the ECFs.

Primacy, sure. But not the sole rule, prima scriptura is not the same thing as sola scriptura.

 

[Hentenza]

All pre-Origen uses of the word speak to it as an act of vivification, not a theory of inspiration

That determination would be quite subjective.

Primacy, sure. But not the sole rule, prima scriptura is not the same thing as sola scriptura.

Ok but what other scripture is God breathed? Would you follow a doctrine that was not biblical?

 

[Fervent]

That determination would be quite subjective.

Not really, it's callled examining the existing texts.

Ok but what other scripture is God breathed? Would you follow a doctrine that was not biblical?

There's no need for other God-breathed Scripture, especially since you have yet to establish that God-breathed means what you insist it means contrary to the contemporaraneous uses of it. The ECFs didn't treat it as a sui generis work, they saw it as the Orthodox see it today as the cornerstone of a larger tradition handed down from the apostles.

 

[Hentenza]

Not really, it's callled examining the existing texts.

Obviously your opinion and mine differ even though both of us have examined the texts.

There's no need for other God-breathed Scripture, especially since you have yet to establish that God-breathed means what you insist it means contrary to the contemporaraneous uses of it.

There is no need for other God breathed Scripture because there isn’t any other. I’ll let Clement of Rome answer for me regarding the meaning of God breathed.

“Let us act accordingly to that which is written (for the Holy Spirit saith, “Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom)....Look carefully into the Scriptures, which are the true utterances of the Holy Spirit.”
Clement, The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, XIII

The ECFs didn't treat it as a sui generis work, they saw it as the Orthodox see it today as the cornerstone of a larger tradition handed down from the apostles.

I disagree. The ECFs recognized the divine authorship and apostolic origin which puts the scriptures in a category of their own. I don’t see scriptures like the Orthodox or the Catholics do nor do I recognize tradition at being on par with the Holy Scriptures.

 

[Always in His Presence]

"All" scripture, not "only" scripture.

Can you expand on this please.

Doesn't seem to make logical sense. Like saying all apples, not only apples. What else is there?

 

[Fervent]

Obviously your opinion and mine differ even though both of us have examined the texts.

Have you examined the words usage in contemporaneous texts? What is your opinion based on?

There is no need for other God breathed Scripture because there isn’t any other. I’ll let Clement of Rome answer for me regarding the meaning of God breathed.

“Let us act accordingly to that which is written (for the Holy Spirit saith, “Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom)....Look carefully into the Scriptures, which are the true utterances of the Holy Spirit.”
Clement, The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, XIII

That says nothing about the meaning of pneumotheos.

I disagree. The ECFs recognized the divine authorship and apostolic origin which puts the scriptures in a category of their own. I don’t see scriptures like the Orthodox or the Catholics do nor do I recognize tradition at being on par with the Holy Scriptures.

You may disagree, but it's clear that the ECFs didn't hold to a sola scriptura view, and the recognition of canonical rule is not the same thing as the Protestant tradition of the sui generis nature of the text that is wrapped up in the dominant theories of inspiration. Tradition isn't "on par" with Scripture, Scripture is embedded in tradition and cannot be separated from it. To treat them as distinct authorities is the road to error, because that leads to ahistorical eisgesis through bringing modern contexts to the text rather than treating them in their historical context.

 

[Valletta]

Can you expand on this please.

Doesnt seem to make logical sense. Like saying all apples, not only apples. What else is there

Certainly. All of the Arctic is cold in winter, but not only the Arctic is cold in winter. All of Holy Scripture is profitable, etc., that does not mean only Holy Scripture is profitable, etc.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Certainly. All of the Arctic is cold in winter, but not only the Arctic is cold in winter. All of Holy Scripture is profitable, etc., that does not mean only Holy Scripture is profitable, etc.

How does that connect with the verse in Timothy?

2 Tim 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for ]instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Only Holy Scripture - is profitable for doctrine etc.

 

[Hentenza]

Have you examined the words usage in contemporaneous texts? What is your opinion based on?

There are several coeval authors that come to mind like Gregory of Nyssa that attacked the Arius heretical views using what he called inspired scriptures and divine words. Another one would be Tertullian defending the Trinity calling the scriptures the rule of faith. There is more but I’ll have to look at my studies when I get home.

When I replied to your post my answer was that both of us had read texts but had different opinions. So what is your opinion based on?

That says nothing about the meaning of pneumotheos.

I’m pretty sure that “true utterances of the Holy Spirit” qualifies nicely.

You may disagree, but it's clear that the ECFs didn't hold to a sola scriptura view, and the recognition of canonical rule is not the same thing as the Protestant tradition of the sui generis nature of the text that is wrapped up in the dominant theories of inspiration. Tradition isn't "on par" with Scripture, Scripture is embedded in tradition and cannot be separated from it. To treat them as distinct authorities is the road to error, because that leads to ahistorical eisgesis through bringing modern contexts to the text rather than treating them in their historical context.

We continue to disagree here. I consider Holy Scripture to stand on its own and above tradition. Many errors come from using tradition in the same level as Holy Scripture including the errors by the Pharisees of old that Jesus so eloquently defeated and newer heretical groups like the Mormons and JWs. The history, in fact, favors the uniqueness and sufficiency of scripture.

 

[Fervent]

There are several coeval authors that come to mind like Gregory of Nyssa that attacked the Arius heretical views using what he called inspired scriptures and divine words. Another one would be Tertullian defending the Trinity calling the scriptures the rule of faith. There is more but I’ll have to look at my studies when I get home.

Gregory of Nyssa isn't contemporaneous with Paul, and doesn't bring any light to what theopneustos means.

When I replied to your post my answer was that both of us had read texts but had different opinions. So what is your opinion based on?

Seeing its usage in pre-Origen material such as the Sibylline oracles, Testament of Abraham, and Vettius Velens. I am well aware later authors, beginning with Origen, took it to be speaking of inspiration but that is after 2 and a half centuries had passed since Paul wrote it.

I’m pretty sure that “true utterances of the Holy Spirit” qualifies nicely.

No one is denying the truth and reliability of Scripture. The question is whether or not it is exhaustive, which none of the ECFs believed

We continue to disagree here. I consider Holy Scripture to stand on its own and above tradition. Many errors come from using tradition in the same level as Holy Scripture including the errors by the Pharisees of old that Jesus so eloquently defeated and newer heretical groups like the Mormons and JWs. The history, in fact, favors the uniqueness and sufficiency of scripture.

You are operating under a tradition that developed a millenium and a half after the Scriptures were written. So its not Scripture vs tradition, but which tradition should take precedence. The Protestant tradition developed by Luther and Calvin based on nearly sole dependence on Augustine for ancient support, or the broader tradition of the church that was united until the turn of the first millenium.

 

[Hentenza]

Gregory of Nyssa isn't contemporaneous with Paul, and doesn't bring any light to what theopneustos means.

I didn’t quote Paul. I quoted Clement. You keep moving the goal posts. I’m going to end this here. You don’t respond to my posts like I respond to yours.

 

[Fervent]

I didn’t quote Paul. I quoted Clement. You keep moving the goal posts. I’m going to end this here. You don’t respond to my posts like I respond to yours.

It's not about who you quoted, but the use of theopneustos in its original context. So no goalposts have been moved, as the issue remains what "God-breathed' means in 2 Tim. 3:16.

 

[Hentenza]

It's not about who you quoted, but the use of theopneustos in its original context. So no goalposts have been moved, as the issue remains what "God-breathed' means in 2 Tim. 3:16.

Actually it is about who I quoted. Clement’s quote more than meets the definition of theopneustos so yes, the goal posts have been moved. Secondly I have been addressing your posts in good faith while you continue to change from sui generis to pneumotheos to now theopneustos. So yes, you are moving the goal posts and I’m calling you out on it. I’m done. Be blessed.

 

[Fervent]

Actually it is about who I quoted. Clement’s quote more than meets the definition of theopneustos so yes, the goal posts have been moved. Secondly I have been addressing your posts in good faith while you continue to change from sui generis to pneumotheos to now theopneustos. So yes, you are moving the goal posts and I’m calling you out on it. I’m done. Be blessed.

Clement's quote doesn't contain the word, so what do you mean "meets the definition"? What's required is examination of uses of the word itself from contemporaries of Paul to see how it was originally used, not pretending we already know the definition. No goal posts have been moved, you simply don't seem to understand what it is I am after because you presume to already know the meaning of the word that is in dispute.

As for the switch from pneumotheos to theopneutos, it's because I was going off memory instead of reading the Greek fresh and had reversedd the order of 'God" and "breathed" in the word. As for the sui generis nature, we haven't really touched on that much at all. Or at least I haven't, because I prefer to focus on one thing at a time. Which is the meaning of the word that translates to God-breathed in 2 Tim. 3:16.

 

[Hentenza]

Clement's quote doesn't contain the word, so what do you mean "meets the definition"? What's required is examination of uses of the word itself from contemporaries of Paul to see how it was originally used, not pretending we already know the definition. No goal posts have been moved, you simply don't seem to understand what it is I am after because you presume to already know the meaning of the word that is in dispute.

No. Is not the word that matters but the concept. The scriptures are indeed unique, sui generis. The scriptures are in fact God breathed, pneumotheos, and the scriptures are divinely inspired, theopneustos. I have submitted ECF evidence for every one of these. Now is your turn to either agree or debunk.

 

[Fervent]

No. Is not the word that matters but the concept.

The concept associated with the word absolutely matters, because Clement is not Scripture...so in resorting to him for the concept you are going beyond Scripture and violating your commitment to sola scriptura. So whether or not the word used by Paul is in fact associated with the concept is of great import.

The scriptures are indeed unique, sui generis. The scriptures are in fact God breathed, pneumotheos, and the scriptures are divinely inspired, theopneustos. I have submitted ECF evidence for every one of these. Now is your turn to either agree or debunk.

No, you've submitted 2 authors who speak to a sense of inspiration through quote mining, rather than dealing with the broader thrust of the ECFs who at no point held Scripture to be exhaustive, and in fact recognized that it was the association of Scripture with tradition that authenticates them. They are not two separate, competing authorities but an authority embedded within an authority. You are operating from a late middle ages tradition whose origin is traceable to Jan Hus and made popular by Luther and Calvin. Isolating Scripture from tradition is nothing but confusion, like separating the heart from the body.

 

[Hentenza]

The concept associated with the word absolutely matters, because Clement is not Scripture...so in resorting to him for the concept you are going beyond Scripture and violating your commitment to sola scriptura. So whether or not the word used by Paul is in fact associated with the concept is of great import.

No, you've submitted 2 authors who speak to a sense of inspiration through quote mining, rather than dealing with the broader thrust of the ECFs who at no point held Scripture to be exhaustive, and in fact recognized that it was the association of Scripture with tradition that authenticates them. They are not two separate, competing authorities but an authority embedded within an authority. You are operating from a late middle ages tradition whose origin is traceable to Jan Hus and made popular by Luther and Calvin. Isolating Scripture from tradition is nothing but confusion, like separating the heart from the body.

No. I submitted a couple of ECF quotes to support that the ECFs believed in the sui generis of scripture which was your first argument. We need to resolve this argument before moving to the next. So post your argument.

 

[Fervent]

No. I submitted a couple of ECF quotes to support that the ECFs believed in the sui generis of scripture which was your first argument. We need to resolve this argument before moving to the next. So post your argument.

Neither quote establishes that, they simply attest to the texts being inspired. And Clement is particularly weak to cite considering he believed books like The Shepherd were Scripture. The ECFs have to be read in context, not simply quote mined to proof text for debates that rose later.

 

[Hentenza]

Neither quote establishes that, they simply attest to the texts being inspired.

And unique. Inspired scriptures is much more than tradition has.

And Clement is particularly weak to cite considering he believed books like The Shepherd were Scripture.

lol When you can’t beat them then attempt to discredit them. I had higher expectations from you.

The ECFs have to be read in context, not simply quote mined to proof text for debates that rose later.

The context still proves my point. You are still to put up a credible argument. Your opinion does not count.