Magic Puppet Theory

[Standing Up]

I did, but I'll do it again differently.

I'll use a different example. "I am eating chicken and rice, which, as I said to my wife, is my favorite dish." What you have essentially done with the quote by St Irenaeus is "wife, is my favorite dish". If I were to bold that sentence to demonstrate what the thrust of that sentence is, I would do it as follows:
"I am eating chicken and rice, which, as I said to my wife, is my favorite dish."

In the quote from St Irenaeus we run into a similar situation with respect to the overall point of the sentence and the various amplifying phrases in it.

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.

Prepositional phrases (such as "in public", "by the will of God", "in the Scriptures") do not add to nor detract from the point of a sentence. They provide some amplifying information and perhaps some background or context, but they do not "make the point". The portion that mentions the Scriptures is part of a prepositional phrase and is not in the same thought as "to be the ground and pillar of our faith". St Irenaeus' point is that the Gospel is the ground and pillar of our faith, and the parts about "in public" and "in the Scriptures" are not part of that thought and only serve to provide some context for his statement.

I understand phrases. Commas, however, may or may not be in the original writing.

Nonetheless the point Irenaeus is making is moving what we learn (gospel) went from spoken (proclaim in public) to written (scripture). From the rest of his paragraph:

" After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia."

So, again, his point is the spoken word "moved" to the written word, the scripture, the ground and pillar of our faith.

PS. As such, sure, the Gospel is in scripture, the ground and pillar of our faith.

 

[Standing Up]

Gospel...by the will of God...in Scriptures------>the ground and pillar or our faith.
I don't think that SU would disagree, since this is the point he was making.

Scrip(Gospel)tures.

Certainly we find the Good News in Scripture, the ground and pillar of our faith.

What Irenaues is not implying is that some Tradition or Council or Magesterium is the ground/pillar of our faith.

 

[Montalban]

You've quoted St Irenaeus, but he doesn't say what you think he says. I've pointed that out, but you don't address my points, but re-quote St Irenaeus and say that he backs your point of view.

St Irenaeus doesn't support your point of view. Re-quoting him won't help. Please address the counter-points made to your arguments.

I think it can happen where some don't have any more argument to make so they spam the threads with random quotes.

I say 'random' quotes because they're not given context.

Irenaeus is another here and it's still not addressed the very irony of citing him as an authority to say he has no authority.

It's a wonderful paradoxical argument being presented based on endless repetition.

 

[Montalban]

Selective quoting.

Irenaeus praises scripture - publish that.

Irenaeus praises tradition - ignore that.

 

[Montalban]

Many churches have wonderful traditions. But the traditions for the most part vary according to the particular rite, history and location of that church.

You're confusing tradition with Tradition.

A small 't' tradition might be that my church doesn't have musical instruments in the Liturgy.

This is not a matter of dogma.

Big 'T' tradition is that such as the nature of the Trinity. This is not set out in scripture but is not contrary to scripture either.

The Church Councils set out matters of faith.

 

[Montalban]

Gospel...by the will of God...in Scriptures------>the ground and pillar or our faith.
I don't think that SU would disagree, since this is the point he was making.

Scrip(Gospel)tures.

But it's missing the point. That's the point!

No one denies that scripture is true, nor that it should be a pillar of faith.

However the selective use of evidence to suggest that it's the ONLY pillar of faith is deceptive because Irenaeus doesn't say that!

I've noted where Irenaeus praises tradition. So has another here.

Rather than address that the original 'point' is simply repeated over and over again as if repetition will make it true. Or, more likely that others will just desist from the thread and then some kind of hollow 'victory' has been achieved.

Further to those problems of selective use, and non-argument is the problem of Irenaeus being used to deny tradition - he's a proponent of it himself - he's a Church Father. Citing a Church Father to attempt to say "We shouldn't rely on Church Fathers" is simply a confused argument.

 

[Standing Up]

Not a, but the ground and pillar of our faith, scripture.

 

[Montalban]

Ireneaus says of scripture that it is "the ground and pillar of our faith"

If he meant THE ONLY then he'd be set against Paul who says in Ephesians that the faith is built on the Apostles with Jesus as the chief corner-stone.

There is no confusion or contradiction in Irenaeus unless one tries to work into his writing a meaning he didn't support.

The real telling point is that at the time he wrote it the Bible had not been set down. How could he be supporting a scripture-only stance when scripture itself had not be canonised?

Unless one is to say he had some kind of prophetic look ahead and knew what would be.

However he was aware of the four gospels, and that's actually what he's referring to...

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed perfect knowledge, as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.​

Later he also says (3.11.8):

It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the "pillar and ground" of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh. From which fact, it is evident that the Word, the Artificer of all, He that sits upon the cherubim, and contains all things, He who was manifested to men, has given us the Gospel under four aspects, but bound together by one Spirit.​

Therefore the Gospels are the pillar of faith - if one were to take this literally as some are trying to do here then he's excluding all the Epistles!

 

[Dorothea]

Some people have an interesting sense of logic.

When something says "Scriptures are a pillar of truth" it doesn't say "Scriptures are the ONLY pillar of truth" especially when I've already shown the context of what Irenaus said.

The 'only' bit is not only missing, it's not even implied!

And it's still not addressing the irony of citing ECFs as an authority to say that they have no authority!

I thought the Church was the Pillar of the truth.

 

[Knee V]

I thought the Church was the Pillar of the truth.

That is indeed what St Paul teaches us. I think that we're speaking too loosely in this thread. St Irenaeus says that the Gospel is the ground and pillar of our faith; he doesn't say (at least not in that quote, and I don't have an exhaustive knowledge of all that he wrote) that it is the pillar and ground of truth. It's good that we make that distinction.

 

[Dorothea]

That is indeed what St Paul teaches us. I think that we're speaking too loosely in this thread. St Irenaeus says that the Gospel is the ground and pillar of our faith; he doesn't say (at least not in that quote, and I don't have an exhaustive knowledge of all that he wrote) that it is the pillar and ground of truth. It's good that we make that distinction.

Ah, I see. Thanks much, knee.

 

[Rick Otto]

I did, but I'll do it again differently.

I'll use a different example. "I am eating chicken and rice, which, as I said to my wife, is my favorite dish." What you have essentially done with the quote by St Irenaeus is "wife, is my favorite dish". If I were to bold that sentence to demonstrate what the thrust of that sentence is, I would do it as follows:
"I am eating chicken and rice, which, as I said to my wife, is my favorite dish."

In the quote from St Irenaeus we run into a similar situation with respect to the overall point of the sentence and the various amplifying phrases in it.

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.

Prepositional phrases (such as "in public", "by the will of God", "in the Scriptures") do not add to nor detract from the point of a sentence. They provide some amplifying information and perhaps some background or context, but they do not "make the point". The portion that mentions the Scriptures is part of a prepositional phrase and is not in the same thought as "to be the ground and pillar of our faith". St Irenaeus' point is that the Gospel is the ground and pillar of our faith, and the parts about "in public" and "in the Scriptures" are not part of that thought and only serve to provide some context for his statement.

Knee-V! Great magbifying glass ya got there. I agree with your explanation of the structure of the sentence! in order to see the sentence without them, it looks like this:
We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.

Right? I think that accurately illustrates what you mean, but please take one more look and see what the object of the verb is:

We have learned from (apostles) the plan of our salvation, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.


The plan. Once oral, but by the same guys, now written.
Thank God for it.

 

[Rick Otto]

Montalban;Big 'T' tradition is that such as the nature of the Trinity. This is not set out in scripture but is not contrary to scripture either.

It is set out in scripture in several places.
Or did it fall out of the sky & land in a bishop's lap (to borrow one of your own rhetorical constructs)?

The Church Councils set out matters of faith.

According to scripture, as best they understood it.

 

[Knee V]

Knee-V! Great magbifying glass ya got there. I agree with your explanation of the structure of the sentence! in order to see the sentence without them, it looks like this:
We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.

Right? I think that accurately illustrates what you mean, but please take one more look and see what the object of the verb is:

We have learned from (apostles) the plan of our salvation, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.


The plan. Once oral, but by the same guys, now written.
Thank God for it.

It seems to me that he is using "plan of our salvation" and "Gospel" interchangeably. What do you think?

 

[Rick Otto]

It seems to me that he is using "plan of our salvation" and "Gospel" interchangeably. What do you think?

I think you are correct, but it seemes to me you don't think the plan in it's complete form can be found in scripture (written). Wouldn't that idea contradict 2Tim3:whatever?

 

[whitetiger1]

I thought the Church was the Pillar of the truth.

Oh you find fast that that is wrong and any tradition along with it is. Go figure Christians for eons have been wrong, who knew.

 

[Knee V]

I think you are correct, but it seemes to me you don't think the plan in it's complete form can be found in scripture (written). Wouldn't that idea contradict 2Tim3:whatever?

I think that my position would be more accurately summed up by saying that the plan of salvation was articulated in Scripture as precisely as it needed to be at the time. But neither Paul, nor Peter, nor John had to use any language to combat Arianism or Nestorianism. Their issues were Paganism, Judaizing and, later, Gnosticism, and the language of Scripture (more accurately, the New Testament, as the Old Testament is written in a different context) reflects that. It's certainly summed up in today's Epistle reading, which is Eph 4:7-13:

9-10 (NKJV) (Now this, “He ascended”—what does it mean but that He also first descended into the lower parts of the earth? He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.)

This is a pretty concise summary of the "plan of salvation" (other summaries are found elsewhere). Christ descended and then ascended that He might fill all things, and the ramifications of that could be expounded upon (which is beyond the scope of this thread... I'm just giving an example). We would have no problem calling that "the Gospel", although one could certainly say it differently. But as new heresies arose, we had to clarify what we meant when we said things.

Perhaps a different way to describe what we mean by "Tradition" might be something along the lines of: the heritage of the Church is not a body of beliefs, but the possession of Someone - it is the knowledge of God. The Church knows her Christ. That experience of the Church was the same in 33AD as it is now, and that is what is "handed down". When a wolf comes in proclaiming a different Christ, the Church can call his bluff. But, depending on the nature of the wolf, pulling out a Jn 3:16 or some other proof text won't suffice, as the language that the Apostles used was suited to the issues at their time. So the Church can use contemporary terminology to describe her experience with her Christ. And that contemporary terminology, although different from the language that the Apostles used, is still describing the same Christ/God.

So the plan of salvation is in Scripture. It's just that the words of Scripture in and of themselves are not meant to be a once-and-for-all text book to which we can refer someone when they are in error.

I hope that makes sense and that I didn't muddle that up too badly.

 

[whitetiger1]

I think that my position would be more accurately summed up by saying that the plan of salvation was articulated in Scripture as precisely as it needed to be at the time. But neither Paul, nor Peter, nor John had to use any language to combat Arianism or Nestorianism. Their issues were Paganism, Judaizing and, later, Gnosticism, and the language of Scripture (more accurately, the New Testament, as the Old Testament is written in a different context) reflects that. It's certainly summed up in today's Epistle reading, which is Eph 4:7-13:

9-10 (NKJV) (Now this, “He ascended”—what does it mean but that He also first descended into the lower parts of the earth? He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.)

This is a pretty concise summary of the "plan of salvation" (other summaries are found elsewhere). Christ descended and then ascended that He might fill all things, and the ramifications of that could be expounded upon (which is beyond the scope of this thread... I'm just giving an example). We would have no problem calling that "the Gospel", although one could certainly say it differently. But as new heresies arose, we had to clarify what we meant when we said things.

Perhaps a different way to describe what we mean by "Tradition" might be something along the lines of: the heritage of the Church is not a body of beliefs, but the possession of Someone - it is the knowledge of God. The Church knows her Christ. That experience of the Church was the same in 33AD as it is now, and that is what is "handed down". When a wolf comes in proclaiming a different Christ, the Church can call his bluff. But, depending on the nature of the wolf, pulling out a Jn 3:16 or some other proof text won't suffice, as the language that the Apostles used was suited to the issues at their time. So the Church can use contemporary terminology to describe her experience with her Christ. And that contemporary terminology, although different from the language that the Apostles used, is still describing the same Christ/God.

So the plan of salvation is in Scripture. It's just that the words of Scripture in and of themselves are not meant to be a once-and-for-all text book to which we can refer someone when they are in error.

I hope that makes sense and that I didn't muddle that up too badly.

If I may say it makes great sense

 

[Knee V]

With respect to God being our inheritance (and the subject/object of Tradition), I meant to cite Psalm 16:5-6 (NKJV)

O LORD, You are the portion of my inheritance and my cup;
You maintain my lot.
The lines have fallen to me in pleasant places;
Yes, I have a good inheritance.

 

[Rick Otto]

I think that my position would be more accurately summed up by saying that the plan of salvation was articulated in Scripture as precisely as it needed to be at the time. But neither Paul, nor Peter, nor John had to use any language to combat Arianism or Nestorianism. Their issues were Paganism, Judaizing and, later, Gnosticism, and the language of Scripture (more accurately, the New Testament, as the Old Testament is written in a different context) reflects that. It's certainly summed up in today's Epistle reading, which is Eph 4:7-13:

I respect your focus on motives, but I feel I must re-iterate:
[15] And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
[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 perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
That would seem to indicate that it was sufficient to provide reproof & correction against ALL heresy, to me. That, and the inevitable fact that those heresies you mention were defended against with scripture. Interpretation is therefor THE critical issue and is therefor properly gauged by its harmony with the rest of itself.
There will ALways be people with whom we have to agree to disagree until 'kingdom come', but there is unity in both liberty & forgiveness in Christ so none of it should tempt us to break either of the two greatest commandents. It's in keeping those two commandments we create Christian unity, imho.