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.