Sola Scriptura circa 700 AD

[Athanasius377]

Does the Holy Spirit still guide Christendom?

Has it guided Christendom continuously since the Crucifixion?

Yes. It did give us the θεόπνευστος Scriptures.

If so, then the Church as a whole, and especially the Apostolic & Church Fathers and saints within the Church, have been rightly guided, by the HS, for the past 2000 years.

Depends on the case. Adding tradition contrary to the Scriptures and calling it Tradition is not God the Holy Spirit working, its man.

And so, their commentaries & interpretations of Scripture are rightly guided, and Authoritative...

even as Jesus bequeathed the Church the Authority of legal halakhic interpretations, "binding & loosing" (= forbidding / permitting):

https://israelstudycenter.com/binding-loosing-first-century-style/

Have you read the medieval commentaries regarding the Apocrypha? If so then you know they were disputed at best.

And not every interpretation is authoritative especially when it conflicts with scripture. For example,, do you believe Christ was almost 50 years old when he was crucified. By what measure do we know for sure how old Christ was at the time?

But, besides this, those very Jews who then disputed with the Lord Jesus Christ have most clearly indicated the same thing. For when the Lord said to them, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad,” they answered Him, “Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?” Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period. But to one who is only thirty years old it would unquestionably be said, “Thou art not yet forty years old.” For those who wished to convict Him of falsehood would certainly not extend the number of His years far beyond the age which they saw He had attained; but they mentioned a period near His real age, whether they had truly ascertained this out of the entry in the public register, or simply made a conjecture from what they observed that He was above forty years old, and that He certainly was not one of only thirty years of age. For it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken by twenty years, when they wished to prove Him younger than the times of Abraham.

Irenaeus of Lyons. (1885). Irenæus against Heresies. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, p. 392). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.

By denying authority to Tradition, you are denying guidance by the Holy Spirit... which you only acknowledge as far as the original Apostles (= NT), after which -- suddenly -- nothing, no rightly guided authority whatsoever...

Not my argument. That is another straw man. I never said any such thing. Please read my posts carefully. I word them in such a way for a reason. It annoys me when my posts are misrepresented.

You are also implying, that Tradition is somehow at odds with Scripture... but that's not true... some things, like the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, are "embellishments" of Scripture... but, they are technically possible, plausible and certainly consistent with Scripture

Again, not my argument. I never said such a thing. Possible and de fide must believe (Perpetual Virginity of Mary) are vastly different things my friend. The evidence isn't nearly as strong as you believe but that is another topic.

What is an example of some heinous odorous onerous Tradition which directly flies full in the face of Scripture? Scripture doesn't say, but Mary may have been Ascended, Jesus' brothers may have been elder half siblings from a previous marriage... Scripture doesn't demand those interpretations, but does allow them

Um, treasury of merit, purgatory for starters. If you want to start a thread I can serve you the main course.

In Gregory of Nyssa's words, the PPVoM and AoM "can be made to harmonize" with Scripture

A lot of things can be made to harmonize with scripture, but isn't that Post hoc ergo propter hoc?

 

[FireDragon76]

I don't believe the early church necessarily had a modern, comprehensive understanding of inerrancy or inspiration. My own religious tradition even sees degrees of authority within the canon- an understanding that is often minimized in interconfessional discussions.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Does the Holy Spirit still guide Christendom?

Has it guided Christendom continuously since the Crucifixion?

"It" is a "He," and the issue is that God's promise of His presence and guidance simply has never meant ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, or otherwise that leadership would always follow Divine guidance.

Instead, God has often raised up men of God whom a remnant of mostly common souls ascertained to be of God, and who often reproved leadership, which in turn rejected them.

If so, then the Church as a whole, and especially the Apostolic & Church Fathers and saints within the Church, have been rightly guided, by the HS, for the past 2000 years.
And so, their commentaries & interpretations of Scripture are rightly guided, and Authoritative...

Which premise presents a problem, for they lacked uniformity, while even if they are authoritative, infallibility is not required for this.

Also, the interpretation of (so-called) Church Fathers and saints within the Church differs to some substantial decree within Catholicism, Roman and Eastern Orthodox for two, with both claiming the unique title of one true and apostolic church.

In addition, if you are claiming the writings of such (or of popes even in speaking infallibly) were wholly inspired of God, then that is another level of untenable presumption.

even as Jesus bequeathed the Church the Authority of legal halakhic interpretations, "binding & loosing" (= forbidding / permitting):
https://israelstudycenter.com/binding-loosing-first-century-style/ .

Your linked definition is actually too narrow, but the fact is the the power to bind and loose did not begin with the NT church, nor did it require or infer ensured protection from error, but neither is all of its scope restricted to clergy.

By denying authority to Tradition, you are denying guidance by the Holy Spirit... which you only acknowledge as far as the original Apostles (= NT), after which -- suddenly -- nothing, no rightly guided authority whatsoever...

Well then when are you going to leave your church? For the NT church The church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)

And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

Sounds more like the evangelical basis for veracity than that of Catholicism.

You are saying, that with the death of the last Apostle (John), the Holy Spirit abandoned the Church, which has been on a sort of "unguided ballistic trajectory" for the past 1900 years

That would be a false dilemma, for rejecting that your church is guided by God in declaring something like prayer to created beings in Heaven is the word of God, simply does not have to mean that the church is no longer guided by God.

Tell me btwn oral, passed down tradition and that which is written, what transcendent source were the people of God guided by in this episode of their history:"

And Hilkiah answered and said to Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord. And Hilkiah delivered the book to Shaphan. And Shaphan carried the book to the king... (2 Chronicles 34:15-16,18-19,21)

And Shaphan read it before the king. And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the law, that he rent his clothes...

Go, enquire of the Lord for me, and for them that are left in Israel and in Judah, concerning the words of the book that is found: for great is the wrath of the Lord that is poured out upon us, because our fathers have not kept the word of the Lord, to do after all that is written in this book. (2 Chronicles 34:15-16,18-19,21)

And the king went up into the house of the Lord, and all the men of Judah, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the priests, and the Levites, and all the people, great and small: and he read in their ears all the words of the book of the covenant that was found in the house of the Lord. And the king stood in his place, and made a covenant before the Lord, to walk after the Lord, and to keep his commandments, and his testimonies, and his statutes, with all his heart, and with all his soul, to perform the words of the covenant which are written in this book. (2 Chronicles 34:30-31)

Hint: it was not passed-down oral tradition.

You are also implying, that Tradition is somehow at odds with Scripture... but that's not true... some things, like the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, are "embellishments" of Scripture... but, they are technically possible, plausible and certainly consistent with Scripture

What is an example of some heinous odorous onerous Tradition which directly flies full in the face of Scripture? Scripture doesn't say, but Mary may have been Ascended, Jesus' brothers may have been elder half siblings from a previous marriage... Scripture doesn't demand those interpretations, but does allow them.[/COLOR] [/i][/FONT][/QUOTE]
You are not dealing with mere scholarly, interpretations, but binding doctrines. And the very premise that such need only lack conflict with Scripture is not sound. Based on that hermeneutic the Mormons can justify their tradition of Jesus appearing to American Indians, but instead doctrine needs to be warranted by Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.

In Gregory of Nyssa's words, the PPVoM and AoM "can be made to harmonize" with Scripture

And in Cardinal Ratzinger's words, harmonization would not do it, and instead the basis was that the church can "remembered" what history forgot :

Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative... Altaner, the patrologist from Wurzburg¦had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the "apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared.

But...subsequent "remembering" (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of previously ["caught sight of?" Because there was nothing to see in the earliest period where it should have been, before a fable developed] .." (Joseph Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), pp. 58-59; emp. mine).

 

[Athanasius377]

If you acknowledge "obvious errors" in the books of the Masoretic text (e.g. Amos 9:11-12), then why use it?

On what grounds does Protestantism "cherry pick" the Masoretic text from the Jewish tradition... but then turn around and reject their simultaneous acceptance of the Talmud and Oral Torah Tradition?

---

The Jews, and all of the Orthodox & Catholic Churches (rooted in the Apostolic age), they one and all accept the Authority of Oral Law Tradition.

The writings of the Christian Church Fathers = Christian Talmud

all of the most anciently-rooted flavors of Judeo-Christianity accept & affirm Oral Law Tradition

---

How does one say, "the Jews have it right, let's use their Torah / Tanakh"... when, I guess, we simultaneously so suspect their Rabbinical religious leaders of error, that we reject their Talmudic teachings on Scripture... but, which Scripture we somehow now trust them to have preserved faithfully and accurately...

even while, so I read you post, we acknowledge "obvious errors" in the same Masoretic text

---

All of the oldest Judeo-Christian sects acknowledge Oral Law Tradition as Authoritative, they all affirm that God in heaven guides their saintly religious leaders

All seven billion humans on earth have to know that Jesus and the Apostles were Jewish, and spoke Hebrew (and Aramaic, and eventually learned Greek)

At the Council of Jerusalem in circa 50 AD, Saint James justified the whole gentile mission, by quoting (in Hebrew) Amos 9:11-12, according to the wording of the LXX (and DSS). "Freedom in Christ" for gentiles relies on the LXX wording.

---

The OT that Jesus and the Apostles used was obviously closest to the DSS, which (generally) preserves the wordings & meanings of the LXX... but in the original Hebrew

---

Yes, Jesus and his Jewish Apostles knew the OT in Hebrew (check, Protestants)

But, that OT carried the textual variants preserved in the DSS & LXX (check, Orthodox & Catholics)

(the Essenes who wrote the DSS, which preserved LXX readings in Hebrew, quit the Jerusalem establishment in 150 BC on grounds of alleged corruption; the Christians, who preserved the LXX, were driven out of and quit the Jerusalem establishment in 70 AD on grounds of alleged corruption)

Again, we are not arguing against the LXX as a text for the OT. Those verses in every printed Bible I own including a RC translation has the LXX rendering in a footnote . I am arguing against the inclusion of the Apocrypha as Scripture not for or against LXX as a whole.

 

[Barney2.0]

But religion does not save. The Gospel saves. Religion is just the human-created, culturally-conditioned container around the Gospel.

The Gospel is the basis of the religion.

 

[Barney2.0]

Kelly, J. N. D. (1989). The Oxford Dictionary of Popes. USA: Oxford University Press. pp. 32 ,34;

Where does Oxford get its sources from? Thats my question.

 

[redleghunter]

Where does Oxford get its sources from? Thats my question.

Where do all upper crust universities get their sources?

 

[redleghunter]

Actually it was the same reason the “Reformers” threw out seven books out of the Bible, it simply didn’t agree to their agendas or to what they were preaching.

Prove it.

 

[redleghunter]

Where does Oxford get its sources from? Thats my question.

JVV i, 37-40; PL 13, 347-424; A. Ferrua, EpigrammataDamasiana( Vatican City, 1942); Collectw Avellana (CSEL 35, 1-4; 28-30; 49; 56 f.); Jerome, Devtr. ill. 103; ep. 22, 22; LP 1, 212-15; A. Lippold, 'Ursinus und Damasus 1 , Histona 14 (1965), 105-28; Caspar 1, 196-256; DHGE 14, 48-53 (A. van Roev); EC 4, 1136-9 (A. Ferrua); LThk 3, 136f. (O. Perler); NCE 4, 624f. (M. R. P. McGuire); Seppelt 1, 109-30.

 

[redleghunter]

I’d like emphasize with the word harmonize, what Gregory of Nyssa is merely saying is that everything being taught by the Church can be harmonized with scripture it doesn’t mean scripture is the only infallible authority. Furrthermore quoting Saint Gregory of Nyssa would be self refuting:

Saint Gregory of Nyssa writes:

"[F]or it is enough for proof of our statement, that the TRADITION has come down to us from our fathers, handed on, like some inheritance, by succession from the apostles and the saints who came after them. They, on the other hand, who change their doctrines to this novelty, would need the support of arguments in abundance, if they were about to bring over to their views, not men light as dust, and unstable, but men of weight and steadiness: but so long as their statement is advanced without being established, and without being proved, who is so foolish and so brutish as to account the teaching of the evangelists and apostles, and of those who have successively shone like lights in the churches, of less force than this undemonstrated nonsense?" (Against Eunomius,4:6).

What tradition is he speaking of within the context of Book IV chapter 6?

Was not this work a refutation of Eunomius an Arian heretic?

CHURCH FATHERS: Against Eunomius, Book IV (Gregory of Nyssa)

You may want to read chapter 3 of the same Book IV at the link above. Gregory of Nyssa gives an excellent exegesis from the epistles of Paul.

 

[AACJ]

.

 

[Barney2.0]

Where do all upper crust universities get their sources?

That’s the question, it could have been sources written by rivals or enemies of Pope Damascus l whose goal was to discredit him.

 

[Barney2.0]

What tradition is he speaking of within the context of Book IV chapter 6?

Was not this work a refutation of Eunomius an Arian heretic?

CHURCH FATHERS: Against Eunomius, Book IV (Gregory of Nyssa)

You may want to read chapter 3 of the same Book IV at the link above. Gregory of Nyssa gives an excellent exegesis from the epistles of Paul.

He’s still talking about oral Apostolic tradition.

 

[Barney2.0]

Prove it.

There’s a whole article on it here:

How to Defend the Deuterocanonicals | Catholic Answers

 

[Barney2.0]

JVV i, 37-40; PL 13, 347-424; A. Ferrua, EpigrammataDamasiana( Vatican City, 1942); Collectw Avellana (CSEL 35, 1-4; 28-30; 49; 56 f.); Jerome, Devtr. ill. 103; ep. 22, 22; LP 1, 212-15; A. Lippold, 'Ursinus und Damasus 1 , Histona 14 (1965), 105-28; Caspar 1, 196-256; DHGE 14, 48-53 (A. van Roev); EC 4, 1136-9 (A. Ferrua); LThk 3, 136f. (O. Perler); NCE 4, 624f. (M. R. P. McGuire); Seppelt 1, 109-30.

I can’t find anything on google about it.

 

[Athanasius377]

I’d like emphasize with the word harmonize, what Gregory of Nyssa is merely saying is that everything being taught by the Church can be harmonized with scripture it doesn’t mean scripture is the only infallible authority. Furrthermore quoting Saint Gregory of Nyssa would be self refuting:

Saint Gregory of Nyssa writes:

"[F]or it is enough for proof of our statement, that the TRADITION has come down to us from our fathers, handed on, like some inheritance, by succession from the apostles and the saints who came after them. They, on the other hand, who change their doctrines to this novelty, would need the support of arguments in abundance, if they were about to bring over to their views, not men light as dust, and unstable, but men of weight and steadiness: but so long as their statement is advanced without being established, and without being proved, who is so foolish and so brutish as to account the teaching of the evangelists and apostles, and of those who have successively shone like lights in the churches, of less force than this undemonstrated nonsense?" (Against Eunomius,4:6).

Once again, I am not arguing against tradition as such rather I am arguing as tradition is not on the same level as scripture. And the larger context of Gregory's letter a twelve book treatise against an arian heretic where he is bolstering his argument. This is hardly self refuting. If it as you say then Gregory is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

 

[Barney2.0]

Once again, I am not arguing against tradition as such rather I am arguing as tradition is not on the same level as scripture. And the larger context of Gregory's letter a twelve book treatise against an arian heretic where he is bolstering his argument. This is hardly self refuting. If it as you say then Gregory is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

Gregory is using Holy Tradition to refute the Arian. Tradition has always been on the same level as scripture. As Gregory of Nyssa bases his argument on it as he would on scripture.

 

[Athanasius377]

There’s a whole article on it here:

How to Defend the Deuterocanonicals | Catholic Answers

Ah, catholic slanders. Same tired arguments repeated ad nauseam while at the same time ignoring what your opponent actually says. All of these arguments have been addressed and refuted if you take time to read what we actually say. There are way better arguments in your favor than these.

 

[Athanasius377]

Gregory is using Holy Tradition to refute the Arian. Tradition has always been on the same level as scripture. As Gregory of Nyssa bases his argument on it as he would on scripture.

He is bolstering his argument in book 4 of 12 not putting tradition on the same level.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Again, we are not saying there was not a time when inscripturation was taking place.

That was sleight of hand what you did here. In the previous post you stated that tradition was on the same level as scripture but here you are forced to walk that back. Once again we are not saying tradition is not an authority rather is it not an infallible authority. Where tradition clashes with scripture, no matter how ancient or venerable tradition must give way.

Since I am reading this book, and I highly recommend it to everyone I present a short passage to bolster our position. Renowned historian JND Kelly writes:
There is little need to dwell on the absolute authority accorded to Scripture as a doctrinal norm. It was the Bible, declared Clement of Alexandria about A.D. 200, which, as interpreted by the Church, was the source of Christian teaching. His greater disciple Origen was a thorough-going Biblicist who appealed again and again to Scripture as the decisive criterion of dogma. The Church drew her catechetical material, he stated,5 from the prophets, the gospels and the apostles’ writings; her faith, he suggested, was buttressed by Holy Scripture supported by common sense. ‘The holy and inspired Scriptures’, wrote Athanasius a century later, ‘are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth’; while his contemporary, Cyril of Jerusalem, laid it down that ‘with regard to the divine and saving mysteries of faith no doctrine, however trivial, may be taught without the backing of the divine Scriptures.… For our saving faith derives its force, not from capricious reasonings, but from what may be proved out of the Bible.’ Later in the same century John Chrysostom bade9 his congregation seek no other teacher than the oracles of God; everything was straightforward and clear in the Bible, and the sum of necessary knowledge could be extracted from it. In the West Augustine declared that ‘in the plain teaching of Scripture we find all that concerns our belief and moral conduct’; while a little later Vincent of Lérins († c. 450) took it as an axiom the Scriptural canon was ‘sufficient, and more than sufficient, for all purposes’.
Kelly, J. N. D. (1977). Early Christian Doctrines (Fifth, Revised, pp. 42–43). London; New Delhi; New York; Sydney: Bloomsbury.

And Gregory of Nyssa writes:

The generality of men still fluctuate in their opinions about this, which are as erroneous as they are numerous. As for ourselves, if the Gentile philosophy, which deals methodically with all these points, were really adequate for a demonstration, it would certainly be superfluous to add a discussion on the soul to those speculations. But while the latter proceeded, on the subject of the soul, as far in the direction of supposed consequences as the thinker pleased, we are not entitled to such licence, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings.

Gregory of Nyssa. (1893). On the Soul and the Resurrection. In P. Schaff & H. Wace (Eds.), W. Moore (Trans.), Gregory of Nyssa: Dogmatic Treatises, etc. (Vol. 5, p. 439). New York: Christian Literature Company.

Gregory wrote centuries before the Reformation. How can this be? Unless this belief that unwritten tradition was on the same level as scripture isn't as strong as you are making it out to be.

For reference, Google books provides viewing of the Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian Doctrines portion. while New Advent provides the text of Gregory of Nyssa.