Biblical Exegesis explanation and discussion

[Fervent]

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

No, they don't establish an intrinsic uniqueness to Scripture beyond being the written tradition of the apostles.

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

It's not about discrediting, it's about keeping texts in their context and not just quote mining.

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

We haven't moved beyond the question of what Paul meant by God-breathed in 2 Tim. 3:16, because if you have to go outside of Scripture to establish Scripture you invalidate sola Scriptura. So until you address that question we can't move onto discussing the ECFs and how they never held Scripture to exhaust God's revelation.

 

[Hentenza]

No, they don't establish an intrinsic uniqueness to Scripture beyond being the written tradition of the apostles.

Yes they do. The ECFs considered scripture unique, inspired by God, and the authority for all matters of doctrine. If you have an argument then state it otherwise your opinion does not count.

It's not about discrediting, it's about keeping texts in their context and not just quote mining.

We haven't moved beyond the question of what Paul meant by God-breathed in 2 Tim. 3:16, because if you have to go outside of Scripture to establish Scripture you invalidate sola Scriptura. So until you address that question we can't move onto discussing the ECFs and how they never held Scripture to exhaust God's revelation.

Actually I have moved on beyond the question but you are still stuck behind it. Again, either put up an argument or concede that you dont have one.

 

[Fervent]

Yes they do. The ECFs considered scripture unique, inspired by God, and the authority for all matters of doctrine. If you have an argument then state it otherwise your opinion does not count.

Talking about the ECFs while relying on two quotes hardly establishes anything, the existence of councils and other mediations speaks against the idea that Scripture was exhaustive of God's revelation, and no one argues that Scripture isn't the cornerstone authority. Sola Scriptura goes further than simply asserting Scripture as the chief authority but claims that it is hostile to tradition rather than being a portion(the chief cornerstone, certainly) of a broader tradition.

Actually I have moved on beyond the question but you are still stuck behind it. Again, either put up an argument or concede that you dont have one.

You have given no answer to it and instead want to move on without it being addressed. I've presented my argument, which is that God-breathed has nothing to do with inspiration when we consider how it was used by contemporaries and near contemporaries of Paul rather than those who post-date Origen. You've provided no response to this challenge, since you want to move onto other topics.

 

[Hentenza]

Talking about the ECFs while relying on two quotes hardly establishes anything,

I’ve posted the two that I remembered from memory. I can post more if you wish.

the existence of councils and other mediations speaks against the idea that Scripture was exhaustive of God's revelation, and no one argues that Scripture isn't the cornerstone authority.

The scriptures were the foundational text by which all decisions were made. The councils were interpreters of scripture and none of their decisions (at least in the first seven councils) went against scripture. They considered the scriptures to be the rule of faith.

Sola Scriptura goes further than simply asserting Scripture as the chief authority but claims that it is hostile to tradition rather than being a portion(the chief cornerstone, certainly) of a broader tradition.

I don’t consider scripture to be hostile to tradition. All churches have traditions. But I do consider scriptures to be the litmus test of tradition and therefor of higher authority. Here is how Athanasius of Alexandria describes scriptures.

“These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, ‘Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.’ And He reproved the Jews, saying, ‘Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me.’ (Festal Letter 39, 6–7)

You have given no answer to it and instead want to move on without it being addressed. I've presented my argument, which is that God-breathed has nothing to do with inspiration when we consider how it was used by contemporaries and near contemporaries of Paul rather than those who post-date Origen. You've provided no response to this challenge, since you want to move onto other topics.

You have provided your opinion devoid of evidence or support. No challenge has been presented. You keep referring to texts but are yet to cite any or even merely refer to any as a point of discussion. We already know what Paul teaches.

 

[Fervent]

I’ve posted the two that I remembered from memory. I can post more if you wish.

The issue is you're taking quotes out of context, so no amount of individual quotes can establish what you're attempting, especially since none of them claim that Scripture exhausts revelation or is wholly sufficient If they thought as much they wouldn't have written at all and would have simply sent Scripture quotes.

The scriptures were the foundational text by which all decisions were made. The councils were interpreters of scripture and none of their decisions (at least in the first seven councils) went against scripture. They considered the scriptures to be the rule of faith.

Not quite, the councils came about because there were people using the Scriptures to push heretical positions and so the ECFs decided they needed an official statement for what puts one on the outside of orthodoxy. If they thought Scripture was sufficient there would have been no need for a council.

I don’t consider scripture to be hostile to tradition. All churches have traditions. But I do consider scriptures to be the litmus test of tradition and therefor of higher authority. Here is how Athanasius of Alexandria describes scriptures.

The issue is your interpretation of Scripture treats church tradition as a separate authority, rather than recognizing the Scripture exists within the tradition even though it is the normative element of that tradition.

“These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, ‘Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.’ And He reproved the Jews, saying, ‘Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me.’ (Festal Letter 39, 6–7)

None of that is contrary to what I've been saying

You have provided your opinion devoid of evidence or support. No challenge has been presented. You keep referring to texts but are yet to cite any or even merely refer to any as a point of discussion. We already know what Paul teaches.

We haven't progressed to the evidence phase because you've jumped on various threads and provided no response to my primary contention which is about theopneustos in 2 Tim 3:16

 

[Hentenza]

The issue is you're taking quotes out of context, so no amount of individual quotes can establish what you're attempting, especially since none of them claim that Scripture exhausts revelation or is wholly sufficient If they thought as much they wouldn't have written at all and would have simply sent Scripture quotes.

Show me how I am taking quotes out of context. Present evidence to that effect.

Not quite, the councils came about because there were people using the Scriptures to push heretical positions and so the ECFs decided they needed an official statement for what puts one on the outside of orthodoxy. If they thought Scripture was sufficient there would have been no need for a council.

But councils used the scriptures as the litmus test to evaluate and interpret doctrines that were heretical. Their responsibility was one of interpretation of scripture.

The issue is your interpretation of Scripture treats church tradition as a separate authority, rather than recognizing the Scripture exists within the tradition even though it is the normative element of that tradition.

I believe that tradition is dependent on scripture not at equal footing to scripture. Even if we take just the inspiration quality of scripture tradition does not raise to the same level.

None of that is contrary to what I've been saying

It is. You deny the sui generis of scripture but this quote refutes that. Particularly in this portion: “these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these.” Traditions change while scriptures do not.

We haven't progressed to the evidence phase because you've jumped on various threads and provided no response to my primary contention which is about theopneustos in 2 Tim 3:16

“All Scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching, for rebuke, for correction, for training in righteousness;”
‭‭2 Timothy‬ ‭3‬:‭16‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching, for rebuke, for correction, for training in righteousness | New American Standard Bible - NASB (NASB2020) | Download The Bible App Now

All Scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching, for rebuke, for correction, for training in righteousness

bible.com

It just means of Devine origin. God breathed (actual definition of theopneustos) out through human authors who used their own personalities and writing styles but were supernaturally guided by the Holy Spirit to convey His message accurately, making it authoritative for teaching and guidance. It's God's direct speech through people, not just a human idea or construct like tradition, ensuring the text's divine source and truth.

How can your definition be any different? And if it was then why did you not post it but demanded that I post it first? I smell you playing games but correct me if am wrong.

 

[Fervent]

Show me how I am taking quotes out of context. Present evidence to that effect.

They are isolated quotes without context by their nature. There's nothing to prove, because it is the nature of quoting that the words are taken out of their original context.

But councils used the scriptures as the litmus test to evaluate and interpret doctrines that were heretical. Their responsibility was one of interpretation of scripture.

Sort of, but their treatment was as Apostolic tradition and didn't embrace a sola scriptura approach, simply treated the texts as the normative element of a wider tradition.

I believe that tradition is dependent on scripture not at equal footing to scripture. Even if we take just the inspiration quality of scripture tradition does not raise to the same level.

So how do you determine what qualifies as Scripture?

It is. You deny the sui generis of scripture but this quote refutes that. Particularly in this portion: “these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these.” Traditions change while scriptures do not.

No, it supports inspiration not that the Scriptures are wholly distinct as if they descended from heaven one day fully intact in their present form. They hold a special place in tradition, but cannot be removed from tradition without doing violence to them,

“All Scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching, for rebuke, for correction, for training in righteousness;”
‭‭2 Timothy‬ ‭3‬:‭16‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching, for rebuke, for correction, for training in righteousness | New American Standard Bible - NASB (NASB2020) | Download The Bible App Now

All Scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching, for rebuke, for correction, for training in righteousness

bible.com

That is a post-Origen translation, and doesn't establish what the contemporary meaning of the word was when Paul used it.

It just means of Devine origin. God breathed (actual definition of theopneustos) out through human authors who used their own personalities and writing styles but were supernaturally guided by the Holy Spirit to convey His message accurately, making it authoritative for teaching and guidance. It's God's direct speech through people, not just a human idea or construct like tradition, ensuring the text's divine source and truth.

No, its not about the origin at all. God-breath is about life-giving power in its present form which is why Paul goes on to list the ways it is useful.

How can your definition be any different? And if it was then why did you not post it but demanded that I post it first? I smell you playing games but correct me if am wrong.

Because I am drawing my understanding of the words meaning from texts that pre-date the shift towards understanding it as inspiration that began with Origen.

 

[Hentenza]

They are isolated quotes without context by their nature. There's nothing to prove, because it is the nature of quoting that the words are taken out of their original context.

In other words just because you said so. I see.

Sort of, but their treatment was as Apostolic tradition and didn't embrace a sola scriptura approach, simply treated the texts as the normative element of a wider tradition.

They treated the Holy Scriptures as Holy. Every decision they made confirmed with scripture and was derived from scripture. The tradition aspect was always secondary.

So how do you determine what qualifies as Scripture?

I think you now need to start answering questions instead of asking them. You should be aware that all books of the NT had been circulating the churches from the time of their writing and considered inspired. The council merely recognized what God had already determined.

No, it supports inspiration not that the Scriptures are wholly distinct as if they descended from heaven one day fully intact in their present form. They hold a special place in tradition, but cannot be removed from tradition without doing violence to them,

No. Tradition is secondary to scripture. The fact of the scriptures uniqueness and recognized as God’s spoken word from the beginning trumps tradition fully. As I stated before all churches have traditions but, if tradition does not conform with scripture, then you have a heretical cult. The text used to expose heresy has always been the scriptures not tradition.

That is a post-Origen translation, and doesn't establish what the contemporary meaning of the word was when Paul used it.

Again, just because you say so does not work.

No, its not about the origin at all. God-breath is about life-giving power in its present form which is why Paul goes on to list the ways it is useful.

I disagree. Prove your point.

Because I am drawing my understanding of the words meaning from texts that pre-date the shift towards understanding it as inspiration that began with Origen.

Inspiration has been understood from before Origen. I gave you quotes that proved that but, of course, you rejected them just because they don’t agree with you and without evidence.

 

[Fervent]

In other words just because you said so. I see.

No, because any isolated quote is out of context.

They treated the Holy Scriptures as Holy. Every decision they made confirmed with scripture and was derived from scripture. The tradition aspect was always secondary.

Not really, it was always maintaining authentic tradition that was in mind and the Scriptures were seen as normative but not exhaustive/wholly sufficient. Their writings wouldn't exist if they believed that Scripture was all that was necessary, and it was because it was the authentic tradition that made it so. Read Iraenus book 4 of Against Heresies to see how it was the reflection of authentic tradition that was central not some mystical quality of the Scriptural texts.

I think you now need to start answering questions instead of asking them. You should be aware that all books of the NT had been circulating the churches from the time of their writing and considered inspired. The council merely recognized what God had already determined.

No, we don't see an official list of the NT that contains all of the books of the NT until Athanius of Alexandria's third festal letter, and we see several books that were in consideration for inclusion in the NT such as The Shepherd, 1 Clement, and the Didache so there is more to it than simpy 'recognizing" the canon. Without the tradition, the canon cannot be established. Scripture is the heart of tradition, but it is not the end-all be-all that is required for sola scriptura.

No. Tradition is secondary to scripture. The fact of the scriptures uniqueness and recognized as God’s spoken word from the beginning trumps tradition fully. As I stated before all churches have traditions but, if tradition does not conform with scripture, then you have a heretical cult. The text used to expose heresy has always been the scriptures not tradition.

Nope, Scripture and tradition are complementary. One is not subject to the other, as Scripture is simply the cornerstone of tradition.

Again, just because you say so does not work.

Not because i say so.

I disagree. Prove your point.

Prior to Origen, theopneustas was consistently used for things that give life such as a fresh spring. I've listed off several of the works that contain such a usage, so your disagreement is rather meaningless.

Inspiration has been understood from before Origen. I gave you quotes that proved that but, of course, you rejected them just because they don’t agree with you and without evidence.

Theopneustos was not understood as inspiration before Origen. It's not that there wasn't a concept of inspiration, but that 2 Tim 3:16 does not have inspiration in mind and the shift to make such an application begins with Origen.

 

[Hentenza]

No, because any isolated quote is out of context.

Again, because you said so does not work. This discussion is now going in circles so I’m bowing out. Be blessed.

 

[Fervent]

Again, because you said so does not work. This discussion is now going in circles so I’m bowing out. Be blessed.

It's not 'because I said so", it's the nature of the beast. Unless a whole section/work is quoted, isolated quotes lack context. You be blessed as well.