tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post733418265535547210..comments2023-10-05T08:25:13.232-04:00Comments on Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: David T. King and William Webster: Out-of-Context or Hyper-Selective Quotations from the Fathers on Authority: Part I: St. Cyril of JerusalemDave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-36644719195020875102021-04-13T14:16:54.480-04:002021-04-13T14:16:54.480-04:00Hello Dave,
I agree that Sola Scriptura is not wh...Hello Dave,<br /><br />I agree that Sola Scriptura is not what the Father's have in mind when they speak of Holy Writ, but neither do they have in mind the Roman concept of Tradition in relation to Scripture.<br /><br />Cyril says, "Even to me (archbishop of the mother church of Jerusalem and a Doctor of the Roman church), who tell you these things (teaching catechumens the tenants of the faith, an ex cathedra situation if ever there was one), give not absolute credence (no concept of infallibility here), unless you receive proof of the things which I announce (laity are encouraged and deemed able to judge) from the Divine Scriptures (the Standard)." (Catechetical Lectures 4.17)<br /><br />So, the Scriptures, once established by a higher consensus than any other Christian doctrine, become the authoritative Standard by which any and all teachers and teachings can and must be judged.<br /><br />I agree that during the 300s AD the Canon was still being developed, but the lists given by Patriarchs Athanasius of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Gregory Nazianzus of Constantinople (3 of 5 ancient episcopal sees of the Roman empire) are remarkably consistent and still being referenced 400 years later by folks like John of Damascus (On the Orthodox Faith 4.17).<br /><br />John also says, "It is impossible either to say or fully to understand anything about God beyond what has been divinely proclaimed to us, whether told or revealed, by the sacred declarations of the Old and New Testaments.” (On the Orthodox Faith 1.2)<br /><br />Here we have an idea of oral tradition subordinate to the Scriptures. Least we think this an out of context one off, rewind 700 years and Irenaeus says this.<br /><br />"When, however, (heretics) are refuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but by word of mouth." (Against Heresies 3.2.1)<br /><br />Orthodox Father John Behr put it best when he said that, "The content of tradition is nothing other than that which is also preserved in a written form, as Scripture - they are not two different sources. Tradition is not the accumulation of various customs, nor does it provide us with access to knowledge necessary for salvation that is not also contained in Scripture. It is the Gnostics, according to Irenaeus, who appeal to tradition for teachings not contained in Scripture." (University of North Carolina, 1998)<br /><br />Thank You,<br /><br />YonatanYonatanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04115380219471308997noreply@blogger.com