SyCarl,
Nice to see you back again.
Sorry it took so long to reply, but there was an awful family tragedy and, well, I’ve been busy and I hope you will forgive me if I am still a little bit impatient and temperamental.
My “interpretation” is not an interpretation, except in so far as I started from DD’s premise that the Scriptures alone demonstrate sufficiency (as is his argument for II Tim. 3:16. 17 and which it does not claim). In short, I was playing a game of
reductio ad absurdum with him, which of course, he refused to play, nor answer the other challenges put towards him—like the claim that his hermeneutic is identical to the one the CC uses to support the Real Presence in the Eucharist— a doctrine which he of course denies. I do NOT think any single passage is sufficient to equip, nor any single text is sufficient to equip anyone unto every good work. He is the one who seems to hold this position. Perhaps he would be more receptive to critiques of his reasoning skills from a fellow protestant such as yourself.
But again, I see you are digging through the ECF’s to support your claims. This is good. I just wish you would read them all the way through and stop picking and choosing what supports your pet theories and rejecting what you do not like. Maybe you would like to take a stab at these verses since DD refuses to deal with the facts.
In James 1:4, for instance, steadfastness also makes a man “perfect (teleioi) and complete (holoklepoi), lacking nothing.” Seems to me “nothing” is mutually inclusive and exclusive at the same time, like “every good work”. These are stronger Greek words than “artios” (The Holy Spirit’s word choice for “complete” or “competent” in St. Paul’s 2nd letter to Timothy) and so, by your (DD’s)reasoning we would have to say that “steadfastness alone” would make the man of God equipped for every good work.
Titus 3:8 says that good deeds are “profitable”, “excellent and beneficial” but surely you wouldn’t argue “sola works” would you?
II Tim. 2:21 says that purity (cleansing from these things) makes one “ready for every good work.” “Purity alone”? (Same letter, by the way.)
Col. 4:12 says that Epaphras is praying that the Colossians may be “perfect and fully assured in all the will of God.” “Prayer alone”?
As for St. John Chrysostom, I agree with him, and you are right: he is a Doctor of the Church
par excellence. Once again, though, as you did with Aquinas previously, you leave out the other half of his position.
‘So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word, or by an epistle of ours’ [2 Thes 2:15]. Hence it is MANIFEST, that they did NOT deliver all things by Epistle, but MANY THINGS UNWRITTEN, and IN LIKE MANNER BOTH the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the TRADITION of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition seek no farther." Homilies on Second Thessalonians 4,2
“We may answer, that what is here written, was sufficient for those who would attend, and that the sacred writers ever addressed themselves to the matter of immediate importance, whatever it might be at that time: it was no object with them to be writers of books: in fact, there are MANY THINGS which have been delivered by UNWRITTEN TRADITION. Now while all that is contained in this Book is worthy of admiration, so is especially the way the Apostles have of coming down to the wants of their hearers: a condescension suggested by the Spirit who has so ordered it, that the subject on which they chiefly dwell is that pertains to Christ as man. For so it is, that while they discourse so much about Christ, they have spoke little concerning His Godhead: it was mostly of the manhood that they discoursed, and of the Passion, and the Resurrection, and the Ascension.” Homilies on Acts 1,1
“Not in vain did the APOSTLES order that remembrance should be made of the dead in the sacred mysteries” Homilies on Philippians 3,4
There is my eminent Doctor of the Church. St, John Chrysostom himself.
You see Catholics agree that the Scriptures are the rule of faith along with the deposit of faith from which the correct meanings of Scripture can be found. You reject 1500 years of Christianity to enjoy your own version. Well and good. It is, after all, a free country (or so we are told).
It’s getting tiresome for so many Sola Scriptura advocates to edit the ECF’s and Doctors of the Catholic Church to support what the ECF’s and the Doctors do not support. It’s disingenuous. Why not quote Packer; McGrath; Spurgeon; Calvin; etc. You have your own traditions. Quote Luther, just remember to leave out the parts about lying being okay with God; drunkenness being acceptable; bigamy being okay; women being good for sex alone, and all those things about the best thoughts coming to him on the toilet while he was pushing the devil out of his anus. Quote YOUR traditions, since you guys never seem to read the rest of the Father’s you cite. Remember that old Reformed chestnut----Text without context is a pretext for error? And the Reformers should know a thing or two- thousand about that.
All my best . . .
I should have included a space 5 years ago, and I can’t change it now. My high school apologist classes called me Mr. S, because it was much easier than my long last name… and I liked it - still do.
