The CFs: SS or STC

[Koineman]

The only way to GUARANTEE that you have full control over a thread is to PM the other poster. That way you can be sure no one will stray from your definition of what is allowed.

There’s also the possibility of people showing respect for the purpose of the thread by sticking with it and not using it as a platform for polemics. Charity, though, cannot be forced, so in that sense you are right.

Otherwise, only ordinary forum rules apply. Remember, in the forums, it is open to the public. By posting here, you are inviting everyone to chime in, in whatever way seems appropriate to them (within forum rules of course.)

Yes, you’re right. That is why I don’t intend to respond much to polemics and vitriol. Generally I will ignore those kinds of posts. So such people can post their bitterness all they want, but they won’t get a response from me.

 

[Koineman]

I completely agree that he and the other Ante-Nicene fathers did not see one as having authority over the other.

Hold on. I said that Clement did not compare Scripture with tradition in this text. I said nothing about other texts by him.

My responses to your other recent posts are coming.

 

[Koineman]

First reply to Fr of Jazz:

Originally Posted by Koineman
He says that what is stated must be confirmed, and it is confirmed by the voice of the Lord, the surest of all demonstrations, and the only demonstration.

Yet we must also notice that at the end of VII, 16 he says: “Our gnostic [the orthodox Christian] having grown old in the Scriptures, and maintaining apostolic and ecclesiastic orthodoxy in doctrines, lives most correctly in accordance with the Gospel, and discovers the proofs, for which he may have made search (sent forth as he is by the Lord), from the law and the prophets. For the life of the Gnostic, in my view, is nothing but deeds and words corresponding to the tradition of the Lord.”

I added the text that you omitted. It is in red.

Notice that he specifically identifies the “proofs” as being “from the law and the prophets.” This simply echoes what Clement said in the other parts I quoted, namely, that Scripture is the only sure demonstration of any stated teaching.

You also wrote:

The liars, then, in reality are not those who for the sake of the scheme of salvation conform, nor those who err in minute points, but those who are wrong in essentials, and reject the Lord and as far as in them lies deprive the Lord of the true teaching; who do not quote or deliver the Scriptures in a manner worthy of God and of the Lord; for the deposit rendered to God, according to the teaching of the Lord by His apostles, is the understanding and the practice of the godly tradition. “And what ye hear in the ear”-- that is, in a hidden manner, and in a mystery (for such things are figuratively said to be spoken in the ear) --“proclaim,” He says, “on the housetops,” understanding them sublimely, and delivering them in a lofty strain, and according to the canon of the truth explaining the Scriptures;

He defines the “deposit rendered to God, according to the teaching of the Lord by His apostles” as “the understanding and the practice of the godly tradition.” So what he is saying is that the church’s teaching and practice are the same as “the teaching of the Lord by His apostles.”

“But all things are right,” says the Scripture, “before those who understand,” that is, those who receive and observe, according to the ecclesiastical rule, the exposition of the Scriptures explained by Him; and the ecclesiastical rule is the concord and harmony of the law and the prophets in the covenant delivered at the coming of the Lord.

Clement actually defines the “ecclesiastical rule,” saying that it is “the concord and harmony of the law and the prophets in the covenant delivered at the coming of the Lord.” So, similar to the above statement, he is saying that the church’s teaching is the same as the Scriptures. That is a far cry, however, from saying that the church and tradition, in and of themselves, have authority on a par with Scripture. Let me put it simply:

Clement is saying either:

1. The Church and Tradition have the same teaching as the Scriptures

or

1. The Church and Tradition have the same authority as the Scriptures.

I see nothing in Clement’s text that necessitates the second conclusion. I see much, though, that invites us to accept the first.

 

[Koineman]

Second reply to Fr of Jazz:

. . . . Clement definitely held the church in high regard, but only as the deliverer of the divine tradition. He seems to ascribe ultimate authority to the Scriptures, and I say that because he emphasizes them as the only criterion for truth. Although he does call the “ecclesiastical tradition” the “divine tradition,” he does so only because it originated with the Lord as the only source and came to him and his contemporaries through the apostles and Scripture, handed down through the church.

Your first and third sentences: agreed as stated.

Second? It depends on what you mean by “ultimate authority.” In his teaching Clement does not elevate Scripture over against Tradition and Church as their judge.

Well, that is where we disagree. I think the texts I quoted earlier make it all too clear that Clement elevated Scripture over Tradition and the Church by claiming it is the only or the surest demonstration. Here is that text again:

He, then, who of himself believes the Scripture and voice of the Lord, which by the Lord acts to the benefiting of men, is rightly [regarded] faithful. Certainly we use it as a criterion in the discovery of things. What is subjected to criticism is not believed till it is so subjected; so that what needs criticism cannot be a first principle. Therefore, as is reasonable, grasping by faith the indemonstrable first principle, and receiving in abundance, from the first principle itself, demonstrations in reference to the first principle, we are by the voice of the Lord trained up to the knowledge of the truth.

In other words, the Scriptures are the first principle, and as the first principle, they are not proven but are themselves the proof for all else.

Clement also says:

For we may not give our adhesion to men on a bare statement by them, who might equally state the opposite. But if it is not enough merely to state the opinion, but if what is stated must be confirmed, we do not wait for the testimony of men, but we establish the matter that is in question by the voice of the Lord, which is the surest of all demonstrations, or rather is the only demonstration; in which knowledge those who have merely tasted the Scriptures are believers; while those who, having advanced further, and become correct expounders of the truth, are Gnostics. Since also, in what pertains to life, craftsmen are superior to ordinary people, and model what is beyond common notions; so, consequently, we also, giving a complete exhibition of the Scriptures from the Scriptures themselves, from faith persuade by demonstration.

and this:

But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves.

Again, I point out the obviously exclusive language that Clement uses when referring to the Scriptures, stating that when confirming something, they do not wait for man’s testimony but settle the matter “by the voice of the Lord, which is the surest of all demonstrations, or rather is the only demonstration.” This necessarily elevates Scripture over everything else. If he had meant that Scripture was on the same level of authority as the Church and Tradition, then surely he would not have called Scripture the “only demonstration” and would not have also said that those who toil in their search for the truth will not rest from that search until they get the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves. He does not use this language when referring to either the Church or Tradition.

 

[Koineman]

Third (and final) reply to Fr of Jazz:

On to your other post:

He says here that statements of men must be confirmed by Scripture and that Scripture is the surest and only demonstration. This is pretty clear language.

Except, under pain of viewing him as schizophrenic, throughout his work he not only makes the distinction between oral and written transmission, but stresses that Scripture is read and used correctly only within “ecclesiastical tradition” “according to ecclesiastical rule.” In fact he says “for the deposit rendered to God, according to the teaching of the Lord by His apostles, is the understanding and the practice of the godly tradition.” (VI, 15) Liars, heretics, depart from this. And on top of all that, juxtaposing ecclesiastical tradition also to statements of men, he says the liar is he “who has spurned the ecclesiastical tradition, and darted off to the opinions of heretical men.”

I’m not surprised he says that, since he claims that the ecclesiastical tradition is the same as what the Lord has spoken in the Scriptures and what the apostles have taught. Thus, in his mind, to depart from the ecclesiastical tradition is to depart from the teaching of the Lord and His apostles. This, however, does not even come close to meaning that Tradition and the Church necessarily always have the same authority as Scripture. Based on his statements that the teaching of all three are identical, we can conclude safely that the Church and Tradition have the same authority as the voice of the Lord only insofar as their teachings are the same as the Lord’s. That, however, is more of an inference on my part than something Clement explicitly wrote. The only time he explicitly states that something has ultimate authority—the first principle by which all else is proven and judged—is when he says it about the Scriptures.

(VI, 16) “In consequence of not learning the mysteries of ecclesiastical knowledge . . . they [these men] have dismissed the Scriptures.” (VI, 16)

Again, absolutely, because in his thinking, the teaching of the church and tradition is the same as that in Scripture.

For the next part, to keep our back-and-forth in context, I will quote a statement of yours, a reply of mine, and then a reply of yours:

Fr of Jazz: (2) The oral transmission of the faith (Apostolic Tradition) in the church preceded the NT texts–as even the NT itself shows–and their canonical gathering. The NT in fact arises from the Tradition. It is impossible that the ecclesiastical tradition comes directly from the Scriptures: the church and Tradition existed before the NT was written and was the basis for its canonical gathering. He knows this truth (I, 1; VII, 17).

Koineman: You’re getting into the issue of the extent of the canon of Scripture, but that is something of a tangent here. The relevant issue is whether Clement affirmed the principle that Scripture is the sole rule by which to judge the truth or falsehood of a teaching. What that Scripture consists of is not at issue.

Fr of Jazz: No, I was disputing your statement that Clement taught or suggested “the ecclesiastical tradition comes directly from the Scriptures.” So the fact that he knows everything I mentioned in (2) above is directly on point to that claim and shows that it cannot be so.

Your point about the New Testament Scriptures doesn’t really accomplish anything because it’s fair to say that Clement was referring to the Old Testament when he refers to the Scriptures. In fact, considering the early time period in which he lived, I’d say that was likely the case.
However, I do need to amend what I said earlier about this quote:

For we have, as the source of teaching, the Lord, both by the prophets, the Gospel, and the blessed apostles, “in divers manners and at sundry times,” leading from the beginning of knowledge to the end. But if one should suppose that another origin7 was required, then no longer truly could an origin be preserved.

I think it’s correct to say that Clement believes that the only source of teaching is “the Lord, both by the prophets, the Gospel, and the blessed apostles.” In saying this, though, he is not addressing the question of authority. If he were, I think he would have used clearer, more exclusive language, as he did when he referred to Scripture as the only sure demonstration, as the first principle, and so on.

So, to summarize, we have Clement saying the following:

1. Scripture and the voice of the Lord are the only sure demonstration of the truth of a teaching; it is the first principle that itself cannot be proven but is used to judge all others. However, for your benefit I put forward this caveat: If “voice of the Lord” refers to oral tradition, then we would have to say that both Scripture and Tradition are together the first principle by which to judge all teachings.
2. Scripture and Tradition consist of the same teaching, which is why, when someone departs from Tradition, he is really departing from the truth of the Scriptures.

 

[adf417]

Greetings Koineman & Fr. of Jazz,

I have tried to follow this thread from the beginning. As intermitting as it has been and sense I have slept much sense its inception, I must admit I’m a bit confused.:hypno:

As AmbroseSJ has pointed out, this is a debate forum and you guys do bring up good points worthy of debating, and though I know nothing about debating, and you (Koineman) has stated you do not want to debate, I am beginning to see you do just that w/ Fr. of Jazz, well, except until you don’t.

Can either, or preferably both, of you refresh my memory as what this thread is all about and what exactly it is you are doing if you are not debating when you are explaining your views of the CF’s and correcting others on their views. I sincerely do not understand and quite honestly see a double standard going on from Koineman as to you not wanting to debate. How can this thread have any meaning at all if all issues, such as the “hermeneutics” elephant, Fr. of Jazz has brought up many times, is not thoroughly dealt with?

What is the purpose of not using the PM feature of this forum as has been previously suggested?

Peace gentlemen!!!

 

[Koineman]

Greetings Koineman & Fr. of Jazz,

I have tried to follow this thread from the beginning. As intermitting as it has been and sense I have slept much sense its inception, I must admit I’m a bit confused.:hypno:

As AmbroseSJ has pointed out, this is a debate forum and you guys do bring up good points worthy of debating, and though I know nothing about debating, and you (Koineman) has stated you do not want to debate, I am beginning to see you do just that w/ Fr. of Jazz, well, except until you don’t.

That’s a keen observation. I will answer Fr of Jazz and others to a point, since it would be just plain rude to completely ignore someone, but I am avoiding any prolonged debates. I’ve done that many, many times on the Internet, and I’ve seen others do it many times as well, and I am rather burned out on it. More often than not they degenerate into name-calling and false insinuations, the latter of which has already happened here in the very first disagreement (regarding Clement)! So I see this thread as primarily an ongoing exploration of what the CFs said about the role of Scripture, Church and Tradition. The key word there is exploration. I will also add that a discussion forum does not have to be used for debating.

Can either, or preferably both, of you refresh my memory as what this thread is all about and what exactly it is you are doing if you are not debating when you are explaining your views of the CF’s and correcting others on their views. I sincerely do not understand and quite honestly see a double standard going on from Koineman as to you not wanting to debate. How can this thread have any meaning at all if all issues, such as the “hermeneutics” elephant, Fr. of Jazz has brought up many times, is not thoroughly dealt with?

He is free to explain that in detail.

What is the purpose of not using the PM feature of this forum as has been previously suggested?

From the beginning, I’ve been open to any people posting quotes from church fathers here if they wish. This is not restricted to Fr of Jazz and me, though he and I have been the principal participants.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

**(a)**I’m not surprised he says that, since he claims that the ecclesiastical tradition is the same as what the Lord has spoken in the Scriptures and what the apostles have taught. **(b)**Thus, in his mind, to depart from the ecclesiastical tradition is to depart from the teaching of the Lord and His apostles. **(c)**This, however, does not even come close to meaning that Tradition and the Church necessarily always have the same authority as Scripture. **(d)(i)**Based on his statements that the teaching of all three are identical, **(d)(ii)**we can conclude safely that the Church and Tradition have the same authority as the voice of the Lord only insofar as their teachings are the same as the Lord’s. That, however, is more of an inference on my part than something Clement explicitly wrote. **(e)**The only time he explicitly states that something has ultimate authority—the first principle by which all else is proven and judged—is when he says it about the Scriptures.

I took the liberty to enumerate.
(a) and (b) Agreed as stated and as per his (I,1). But re (a) if the Scripture then and there meant OT, “Lord” would mean “God, of the OT” not “Jesus, the Word made flesh.” Even if the NT is included he never states that the propositional content of Scripture and what the apostles taught and was handed down by tradition is indentical, i.e, equal sets.

(c) It means the authority is STC united, not any one of them separate and alone. In his text he distinguished but never split.

(d)(i) He never says S and T and C separated are identical. What we have from this work is that he lives and teaches about them as a whole, each functioning properly only w/i the whole.

(d)(ii) Agreed, but … we do find assertions in NT writings that, while consistent and in continuity with the Lord’s teachings in the Gospels, go beyond His direct assertions.

(e) Always for him within the context of the whole of STC.

Your point about the New Testament Scriptures doesn’t really accomplish anything because it’s fair to say that Clement was referring to the Old Testament when he refers to the Scriptures. In fact, considering the early time period in which he lived, I’d say that was likely the case.

This would actually strengthen my point. If “Scripture” then and there was the OT, then the saving content of “the teaching of the Lord by His apostles” would surely and necessarily come to his readers then and there by means of STC. This would show all the more why he says that Scripture is read and used correctly only within “ecclesiastical tradition” “according to ecclesiastical rule” showing the probative value of Scripture is only within the context of the whole of STC.

However, I do need to amend what I said earlier … I think it’s correct to say that Clement believes that the only source of teaching is “the Lord, both by the prophets, the Gospel, and the blessed apostles.” In saying this, though, he is not addressing the question of authority. If he were, I think he would have used clearer, more exclusive language, as he did when he referred to Scripture as the only sure demonstration, as the first principle, and so on.

But then you’re saying every quote you offer regarding the probative value of Scripture is referring to the OT. But Clement is right then and there showing his pagan and new Christian readers how surely to know what they need to rely on as the authentic means to know “the teaching of the Lord by His apostles.” Then how can Scripture then and there contain “the teaching of the Lord by His apostles”? And he would then have to be addressing authority since only STC as a whole can give “the teaching of the Lord by His apostles.”

But even if S includes the NT, for him S is still in unity w/ T and C, all three of which were united from the beginning.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

So, to summarize, we have Clement saying the following:

1. **(a)**Scripture and the voice of the Lord are the only sure demonstration of the truth of a teaching; it is the first principle that itself cannot be proven but is used to judge all others. **(b)**However, for your benefit I put forward this caveat: If “voice of the Lord” refers to oral tradition, then we would have to say that both Scripture and Tradition are together the first principle by which to judge all teachings.

(a) Agreed. And, as he says, it is taken on faith.

**(b)**There is good reason to conclude that it does for him:

“Wherefore also the prophet says, You heard the voice of words, and saw no similitude. (Dt 4:12; also 33-36) You see how the Lord’s voice, the Word, without shape, the power of the Word, the luminous word of the Lord, the truth from heaven, from above, coming to the assembly of the Church, wrought by the luminous immediate ministry.” (VI,3)

“Wherefore the Lord preached the Gospel to those in Hades. Accordingly the Scripture says, Hades says to Destruction, We have not seen His form, but we have heard His voice.” (VI,6)

“it is evident that those, too, who were outside of the Law, having lived rightly, in consequence of the peculiar nature of the voice, though they are in Hades and in ward, on hearing the voice of the Lord, whether that of His own person or that acting through His apostles, with all speed turned and believed.”(VI,6)

“And shall no one be amazed at the prophets of God Almighty becoming the organs of the divine voice?” (VI,18)

But even so, S and T are not separate from each other (or the church). For him they were united from the beginning

1. Scripture and Tradition consist of the same teaching, which is why, when someone departs from Tradition, he is really departing from the truth of the Scriptures.

If you mean for Clement Scripture and Tradition are two modalities of transmitting “the teaching of the Lord by His apostles”, and to depart from one or the other is to depart from “the teaching of the Lord by His apostles”, agreed. He does not teach that the propositional content of S and T are coextensive, identical, equal sets.

Taking into account all that Clement says in this work, I think it is safe to conclude he teaches this regarding our subject.

(1) All transmission by whatever means stems from the one source “the teaching of the Lord by His apostles.” (VI, 15) The includes the possession and interpretation of the OT.

(2) From the beginning the Word is transmitted orally from the time of the apostles and in writing (OT later NT) in the unity of the Church.
“If, then, both proclaim the Word–the one by writing, the other by speech–are not both then to be approved. . . the husbandry is twofold,–the one unwritten, and the other written.” (I,1)
“Those masters who preserve the true tradition of the glorious teaching derived in a straight line from the holy apostles Peter, James, John and Paul, transmitted from father to son . . . have come down even to us,” (I,1)
“for the deposit rendered to God, according to the teaching of the Lord by His apostles, is the understanding and the practice of the godly tradition.” (VI, 15)
“But all things are right,” says the Scripture, “before those who understand,” that is, those who receive and observe, according to the ecclesiastical rule, the exposition of the Scriptures explained by Him; and the ecclesiastical rule is the concord and harmony of the law and the prophets in the covenant delivered at the coming of the Lord.” (VI, 15)
The liar is he “who has spurned the ecclesiastical tradition, and darted off to the opinions of heretical men.” (VI, 16) “In consequence of not learning the mysteries of ecclesiastical knowledge . . . they [these men] have dismissed the Scriptures.” (VI, 16)
On the unity and antiquity church see also (VI, 17).

(3) Clement distinguishes but never separates S, T and C, and never pits one against the other.

(4) Clement affirms by word and deed that the written word has a unique dignity as an objective inspired text and is therefore uniquely suited for teaching and proof, but only w/i the context of T and C.
In his writing Scripture is always w/i Tradition and Church which preceded the NT in transmitting the Lord’s teaching, and which form the necessary conditions (native hermeneutic environment) for Scripture’s true interpretation and proper use (VII, 15-16). In his lengthy discussion of the probative value of Scripture it is always in the context of T and C.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Can either, or preferably both, of you refresh my memory as what this thread is all about and what exactly it is you are doing if you are not debating when you are explaining your views of the CF’s and correcting others on their views. I sincerely do not understand and quite honestly see a double standard going on from Koineman as to you not wanting to debate. How can this thread have any meaning at all if all issues, such as the “hermeneutics” elephant, Fr. of Jazz has brought up many times, is not thoroughly dealt with?

This thread stemmed from a previous discussion I had with Koineman.

I argued that the burden of proof is on the Reformer because the preexisting view in the church (as evidenced by the fathers and the Councils of the undivided church) was that God’s word was handed on by STC. Therefore the Reformer has to show why it is more reasonable to abandon the preexisting position (STC) and adopt the newer Reformation position SS.

He wanted to test the fathers and councils to see what they really taught.

I’ve gathered he doesn’t want to get involved in hair-splitting, mean-spirited debate in his exploration. I’ve tried to respect this given that he started this thread. My view is we should try come to some agreement as to what a father is saying. We seem to be more or less doing this.

My argument re hermeneutics has been a more factual one based on a basic philosophical insight: a text is actualized only in reading and until scripture is read and interpreted it is functionally speaking just ink stains on a page. Therefore, to say Scripture is the sole authority is necessarily to say my interpretation of Scripture alone here and now is the sole authority. Consequently it is this that we have to check for in the fathers and councils. He considered this hermeneutic point philosophical and wanted to delay discussion of it.

I believe this is a fair recap.

As far as textual hermeneutics go, I think it is a canon of sound scholarship to interpret them in the context of the times taking into account the language; geographical location; intellectual, cultural and political environment; the state of knowledge at the time, circumstances that occasioned the text, etc.

 

[adf417]

That’s a keen observation. I will answer Fr of Jazz and others to a point, since it would be just plain rude to completely ignore someone, but I am avoiding any prolonged debates. I’ve done that many, many times on the Internet, and I’ve seen others do it many times as well, and I am rather burned out on it. More often than not they degenerate into name-calling and false insinuations, the latter of which has already happened here in the very first disagreement (regarding Clement)! So I see this thread as primarily an ongoing exploration of what the CFs said about the role of Scripture, Church and Tradition. The key word there is exploration..

It seems you and Fr. of Jazz are on the same page based on his response which is great but I still just don’t understand how “exploring” something like this can be done with limits. This seems more like exploring the ocean but lets do it from the shore line from my perspective. Again as long as you two are on the same page then it really doesn’t matter what I think so I will just try to follow best I can in hopes the path that had been diverted will once again be considered at some time in the future.

I will also add that a discussion forum does not have to be used for debating.

Agreed but there has been much debating going on hence the confusion over what you are considering debating vs. exploring. Also, sense this forum offers the option of doing what you are describing via PM, it does, as has been pointed out, beg more and more interjection of which I think you agree, deserves to be addressed at some time. If you do not agree, well, I do not know where we are at.

I will continue lurking…
Peace!!!

 

[adf417]

He wanted to test the fathers and councils to see what they really taught.

I’ve gathered he doesn’t want to get involved in hair-splitting, mean-spirited debate in his exploration. I’ve tried to respect this given that he started this thread. My view is we should try come to some agreement as to what a father is saying.

I certainly agree this should be the goal just not sure how this is done with limits.

We seem to be more or less doing this

I don’t see it this way but as long as you to feel you are then I guess the thread is accomplishing what it set out to do.

Please carry on gentlemen and may the peace of the Lord be with both of you.

 

[Koineman]

I have just two responses to you on this, Fr of Jazz. I make my first response only to show why debates like this end up being pointless. My second response has to do with the “caveat” I posted, so I think that deserves attention because I think that the question of whether Clement was upholding SS hinges on it.

I had written:

(e)The only time he explicitly states that something has ultimate authority—the first principle by which all else is proven and judged—is when he says it about the Scriptures.

to which Fr of Jazz replied:

(e) Always for him within the context of the whole of STC.

If this is true, then it overturns his entire point about Scripture being a first principle. If he meant that it is always within the context of STC, then that means it is no longer the first principle, since it is in that case judged by that entire context just mentioned. When something is read and understood within the context of some larger framework, clearly it is not seen as standing in judgment over that framework but rather is viewed as being understood correctly only when compared to that overall framework. But that, as I said, makes it no longer a first principle that is not judged by anything else. That is why I must disagree with this view of yours.

Now for the second response:

I had written:

(b)However, for your benefit I put forward this caveat: If “voice of the Lord” refers to oral tradition, then we would have to say that both Scripture and Tradition are together the first principle by which to judge all teachings.

to which you replied:

(b)There is good reason to conclude that it does for him:

“Wherefore also the prophet says, You heard the voice of words, and saw no similitude. (Dt 4:12; also 33-36) You see how the Lord’s voice, the Word, without shape, the power of the Word, the luminous word of the Lord, the truth from heaven, from above, coming to the assembly of the Church, wrought by the luminous immediate ministry.” (VI,3)

“Wherefore the Lord preached the Gospel to those in Hades. Accordingly the Scripture says, Hades says to Destruction, We have not seen His form, but we have heard His voice.” (VI,6)

“it is evident that those, too, who were outside of the Law, having lived rightly, in consequence of the peculiar nature of the voice, though they are in Hades and in ward, on hearing the voice of the Lord, whether that of His own person or that acting through His apostles, with all speed turned and believed.”(VI,6)

“And shall no one be amazed at the prophets of God Almighty becoming the organs of the divine voice?” (VI,18)

Thank you for gathering and posting these texts, but all they do is say that the voice of the Lord comes to men apart from God’s form (“We have not seen His form, but we have heard His voice”) and that it sometimes comes to men through prophets or apostles. None of this, though, prevents us from thinking that Clement also believed that the voice of the Lord is in Scripture. In fact, here is another text by Clement from the Stromata that indicates he could have meant this:

On martyrdom the Lord hath spoken explicitly, and what is written in different places we bring together. (Stromata, 4.IX)

He then immediately quotes several statements of Christ from the gospels.

Another text, though not in the Stromata, is by Clement of Alexandria, from The Instructor, 1.VI:

Wherefore the Holy Spirit in the apostle, using the voice of the Lord, says mystically, “I have given you milk to drink.” [1 Cor. 3:2]

The difficulty with reading Clement is that he is downright confusing at times because he throws around words and phrases without defining them, and what is worse, he means different things with the same phrase.

At this point I am filing Clement in the middle column: “Uncertain.”

 

[Koineman]

Agreed but there has been much debating going on hence the confusion over what you are considering debating vs. exploring.

There has not been “much” debating going on. There was no disagreement or debates in any of my postings on Tertullian and Irenaeus, which postings comprise a huge percentage of this thread so far.

I would call my participation in this thread as mainly exploration with limited debate and only when necessary. I call it exploration because for me it is truly that. I am in between Protestantism and the EOC, and I want to learn more about what the CFs said on this subject. That makes my purpose here primarily one of exploration. The problem with the word “debate” is that it connotes a polemical interchange between two or more opponents whose heels are dug in and who are firmly entrenched in their positions. Consequently, the goal is not agreement but to prove the other wrong.

However, if I see a good reason to believe that a CF is saying something contrary to what someone else interprets, I will debate the point, but even then my debating will be limited. It is wise to know when to cease debating. Many on the Internet don’t know when to do so, and usually the discussions degenerate. Been there, done that, and I refuse to do it.

Also, sense this forum offers the option of doing what you are describing via PM, it does, as has been pointed out, beg more and more interjection of which I think you agree, deserves to be addressed at some time.

If you are saying that I am obligated to address every interjection posted on this thread, then I disagree. I see no obligation to do so. If others want to, that’s fine.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

I make my first response only to show why debates like this end up being pointless. . . . At this point I am filing Clement in the middle column: “Uncertain.”

I am more optimistic about dialogue and discussion as a means to reach the truth.

Let me see if I can clear up the uncertainty.

I said regarding the probative value of Scripture “Always for him within the context of the whole of STC.”

You raise these concerns as the basis for your disagreement with me:

“If this is true, then it overturns his entire point about Scripture being a first principle. If he meant that it is always within the context of STC, then that means it is no longer the first principle, since it is in that case judged by that entire context just mentioned. When something is read and understood within the context of some larger framework, clearly it is not seen as standing in judgment over that framework but rather is viewed as being understood correctly only when compared to that overall framework. But that, as I said, makes it no longer a first principle that is not judged by anything else. That is why I must disagree with this view of yours.”

But,

(1) Actually Clement says (VII, 16) that Scripture and the voice of the Lord is the first principle.
Indisputable. That was the basis of your caveat.

(2)(a) You affirm: “that it [the voice of the Lord] sometimes comes to men through prophets or apostles. None of this, though, prevents us from thinking that Clement also believed that the voice of the Lord is in Scripture.”
Indisputable.
Comment: And I agree. Clement clearly believed the voice of the Lord was relayed in both ways. And isn’t that S and T in C then? The first principle is Scripture and the voice of the Lord, not just Scripture. This comports perfectly with his introduction (3) below…twofold husbandry, etc. STC doesn’t maintain that nothing the Lord or the apostles preached orally was written down in the NT. It means the NT texts were written by believers for believers and were from the beginning read in the tradition and church from which they sprang.

(b) The NT authors likewise speak of "the word (of God)” coming through Jesus and apostles and prophets orally as well as it being in Scripture. Neither OT or NT portray or teach that the word of God is an exclusively written word or that the word of God is limited to, equivalent to, and coextensive with the written text of Scripture.
Indisputable.
Comment: Clement’s ambiguity in the case of the voice of the Lord is no different than that of Scripture.

(3) Clement says in the intro to his entire work: “If, then, both proclaim the Word–the one by writing, the other by speech–are not both then to be approved. . . . But the husbandry is twofold,–the one unwritten, and the other written.” (I,1)
Speaking in the section of his intro addressing oral proclamation: “Those masters who preserve the true tradition of the glorious teaching derived in a straight line from the holy apostles Peter, James, John and Paul, transmitted from father to son . . . have come down even to us,” (I,1)
Indisputable.
Comment: This is rather emphatic.
The oral proclamation takes place in the church from the beginning.

(4) Clement make no claim that the propositional content of Scripture and what the apostles taught and was handed down by tradition is identical, i.e., equal sets; or that the ecclesiastical tradition comes directly from the Scriptures.
Indisputable.

(5) In his lengthy discussion of Scriptural proofs (VII,16):
• S is always in the context of STC.
• even the perception of the value of Scripture is within T and C!
• the proofs are against “heresy,” “liars,” “heretics,” “heretical men,” “heretical sects,” but never against the church or Tradition.
Indisputable.
Comment: I’ve provided numerous texts. They comport perfectly with (1), (2)(a), and (3) above.
Among them: The liar is he “who has spurned the ecclesiastical tradition, and darted off to the opinions of heretical men.”
“In consequence of not learning the mysteries of ecclesiastical knowledge . . . they [these men] have dismissed the Scriptures.”
“Our Gnostic then alone, having grown old in the Scriptures, and maintaining apostolic and ecclesiastic orthodoxy in doctrines, lives most correctly in accordance with the Gospel, and discovers the proofs, for which he may have made search (sent forth as he is by the Lord), from the law and the prophets. For the life of the Gnostic, in my view, is nothing but deeds and words corresponding to the tradition of the Lord.”

(6) On top of all this you mention the opinion of many scholars that for Clement, given his time period, Scripture meant the OT.
Indisputable, on both counts.
Comment: Then how can Scripture then and there contain “the teaching of the Lord by His apostles”? If “Scripture” then and there was the OT, then the saving content of “the teaching of the Lord by His apostles” would surely and necessarily come to his readers then and there by means of STC. This would show all the more why he says that Scripture is read and used correctly only within “ecclesiastical tradition” “according to ecclesiastical rule” and the probative value of Scripture is only within the context of the whole of STC.

Because of (1)-(5) let alone (6) the grounds for your disagreement as to what Clement taught do not stand up to the facts.

Even skipping (6) how can (1)-(5) possibly not add up to STC?

 

[Koineman]

Thanks for the reply, Fr of Jazz. I am still not totally convinced of all that you say (and much in that post went pretty much right past what I was getting at), but I have been thinking over my “caveat” since I posted it and, interestingly enough, what I was thinking is exactly what you brought up in your post: Clement refers to Scripture and the voice of the Lord as being the first principle. This makes it unlikely that he had sola scriptura or anything like it in mind, for this reason: He doesn’t say, “Scripture, the voice of the Lord,” with the phrase the voice of the Lord being used appositively with the term Scripture; rather he says “Scripture and the voice of the Lord.” Since he was obviously using two separate terms separated by the word and, it seems unlikely to me that he was using them both to refer to the same thing, i.e., Scripture.

So, although I’m still not totally convinced about exactly where Clement stands in relation to our topic, it’s safe to say he leans much more toward STC than SS.

 

[Koineman]

As a humorous aside, I recently posted this clip on my Facebook page with the comment: Star Trek interpretation of most theological debates on Facebook. Enjoy.

youtube.com/watch?v=Z1SHxFAEjEk

 

[LionHeart777]

As a humorous aside, I recently posted this clip on my Facebook page with the comment: Star Trek interpretation of most theological debates on Facebook. Enjoy.

youtube.com/watch?v=Z1SHxFAEjEk

Well, I’m no Trekky, and I haven’t finished the clip yet, but I’d like to point out a highlight

At about 1:27 Spoc parries a strike from his opponent and counters with what I believe to be a Vulcan nerve pinch (after googling).

 

[Koineman]

Well, I’m no Trekky, and I haven’t finished the clip yet, but I’d like to point out a highlight

At about 1:27 Spoc parries a strike from his opponent and counters with what I believe to be a Vulcan nerve pinch (after googling).

Yeah, I noticed that, too. It probably wasn’t meant to be humorous, but I find it amusing. Everyone is fighting with swords, and he deftly reaches over and nonlethally incaps his opponent.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

As a humorous aside, I recently posted this clip on my Facebook page with the comment: Star Trek interpretation of most theological debates on Facebook. Enjoy.

youtube.com/watch?v=Z1SHxFAEjEk

Hilarious! Thanks.