The CFs: SS or STC

[Fr_of_Jazz]

I think that you do have a lot to fear from church fathers who speak clearly in a manner that supports sola scriptura; hence your attempt to get around St. Cyril’s writing by referring to “historical context,” which I’ve already responded to–and rationally, I might add.

Incidentally, I write here for the record that the issue of historical context was never brought up as long as I was writing summaries of Tertullian and Irenaeus that fit the Roman Catholic view like a glove. Now, however, suddenly out of the blue, I am being told that my approach to St. Cyril’s text is inadequate because I am not taking into account the historical context. Not only does this sudden, arbitrary emphasis on historical context make your bias very clear, it is also a common tactic that I have seen Catholics use often–and one which I don’t think even deserves a response (thus I am being quite charitable to respond to it at all). Most notably I have seen it happen with respect to the question of Pope Boniface VIII’s statement in Unam Sanctam that those who are not subject to the Roman Pontiff cannot be saved. What these people do is disingenuous (and desperate), essentially saying, “Yeah, Pope Boniface said that, but it only looks like he says those outside the church cannot be saved. What he really meant was _______________, which you will see, poor benighted opponent, if you just look at the historical context.” Sorry, Fr of Jazz, I don’t buy it.

In reality, it is I who have nothing to fear from the CFs because I am in an in-between state at this time, questioning Reformation thought and looking deeply into Eastern Orthodoxy. IOW, I am much closer to neutral than you are. So your observation that I “cherish” a system is most inaccurate. You have more at stake than I do. You are firmly entrenched in your system, whereas I am not firmly entrenched in any particular system at this time.

This kind of comment is precisely the kind of spark that sets off pointless debating that is a waste of time. You insinuated that I suspend dialogue and discussion “whenever it is comfortable for [me]” which is not the case. I explained very clearly and reasonably why I don’t wish to debate. If you wish to read into that a desire on my part to avoid discussion when it’s “uncomfortable,” you are entitled to your opinion, but be aware that it’s remarks like this one of yours that only confirm my wish to avoid debate.

I don’t have an assessment of the first two centuries “as a whole.” Remember, this is an ongoing effort. Right now, my initial prediction is coming true: that some CFs come on the side of sola scriptura.

I’m not really following a particular timeline on this, but if you wish to continue posting texts from earlier periods, feel free. This thread’s purpose is simply to survey what the CFs said about SS vs. STC. Quoting CFs in a nonchronological order will not militate against that goal.

There, now that I’ve wasted a lot of time defending myself against false insinuations in this post (see what I mean!?!), let’s continue with exploring the CFs.

Well I guess I can’t refute these false charges, but you have no idea how far off the mark you are with me and patristic scholarship and hermeneutics in general, anyway OK, so far only Cyril (out of the first three we looked at) can be construed to maintain SS.

As far as Eastern Orthodoxy goes I have absolutely nothing to fear because the subject under discussion here is STC vs SS and everybody already knows they teach STC and explicitly reject SS.

Where are you with Clement of Alexandria? Also is your idea that each comment on the other’s ECF posts and come to some consensus as to what side they fall down on re their thought on the subject? That was my understanding.

 

[Koineman]

Where are you with Clement of Alexandria? Also is your idea that each comment on the other’s ECF posts and come to some consensus as to what side they fall down on re their thought on the subject? That was my understanding.

I plan to check out your excerpts from Clement later on in a fuller context.

I don’t think I ever had in mind that we should arrive at concensus for each CF.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

I plan to check out your excerpts from Clement later on in a fuller context.

I don’t think I ever had in mind that we should arrive at concensus for each CF.

Context is good.

Since this thread originated from a discussion regarding the position of the Church East and West (STC vs SS) prior to the Reformation, if there is no consensus, how do we come to agreement on our original question?

Should I post next or you? or both? So you do not invite comment in your thread on each other’s assessment in view of agreement? or you do?

 

[Koineman]

Context is good.

Since this thread originated from a discussion regarding the position of the Church East and West (STC vs SS) prior to the Reformation, if there is no consensus, how do we come to agreement on our original question?

If we don’t have consensus on everything, then we just won’t end up agreeing on the overall question.

Should I post next or you? or both?

We can both post concurrently. It doesn’t matter to me. I’m being pretty casual about this.

So you do not invite comment in your thread on each other’s assessment in view of agreement? or you do?

I don’t mind if others comment. I’m just not going to debate continuously. It will bog down this whole thing if that happens.

 

[Koineman]

Response to your first citation of St. Clement of Alexandria:

[1] It is a good thing, I reckon, to leave to posterity good children. This is the case with children of our bodies. But words are the progeny of the soul. Hence we call those who have instructed us, fathers. Wisdom is a communicative and philanthropic thing. Accordingly, Solomon says, “My son, if you receive the saying of my commandment, and hide it with you, your ear shall hear wisdom.” (Prv 2:1-2) He points out that the word that is sown is hidden in the soul of the learner, as in the earth, and this is spiritual planting. Wherefore also he adds, “And you shall apply your heart to understanding, and apply it for the admonition of your son.” For soul, methinks, joined with soul, and spirit with spirit, in the sowing of the word, will make that which is sown grow and germinate. And every one who is instructed, is in respect of subjection the son of his instructor. “Son,” says he, “forget not my laws.” (Prv 3:1)
[2] And if knowledge belong not to all (set an a - - [donkey] to the lyre, as the proverb goes), yet written compositions are for the many. . . .
[3] If, then, both proclaim the Word–the one by writing, the other by speech–are not both then to be approved, making, as they do, faith active by love? It is by one’s own fault that he does not choose what is best; God is free of blame. . . .
[6] But the husbandry is twofold,–the one unwritten, and the other written. And in whatever way the Lord’s labourer sow the good wheat, and grow and reap the ears, he shall appear a truly divine husbandman. . . .
[8] Now the Scripture kindles the living spark of the soul, and directs the eye suitably for contemplation; perchance inserting something, as the husbandman when he ingrafts, but, according to the opinion of the divine apostle, exciting what is in the soul. . . .
[11] 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–though few of the sons are of the stature of the fathers–have come down even to us, by God’s grace, to plant in us these glorious seeds of their forebears and of the apostles.
[St. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata I, 1, 1-11] ~150-215 AD

**He essentially says that it is good and right for wisdom to be passed from one person to another and that both oral and written proclamation of the Word are good. The true tradition has come to them in an unbroken line from the apostles.

So, what he focuses on here is the passing on of tradition from “fathers” to “sons”—from the apostles to their “sons,” and from them in turn to their “sons,” and so on. In fact, he quotes from 2 Timothy 2: “And the things which thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.”

It’s important to call attention to the fact that Clement does not compare Scripture with Tradition in this text (unless I’ve missed something); he does not indicate either one as having authority over the other. All he seems to be focused on is the passing on of teaching from the apostles down to his time.
**

 

[Koineman]

Response to your second citation of St. Clement of Alexandria (part 1 of 2):

As, then, if a man should, similarly to those drugged by Circe, become a beast; so he, who has spurned the ecclesiastical tradition, and darted off to the opinions of heretical men, has ceased to be a man of God and to remain faithful to the Lord. But he who has returned from this deception, on hearing the Scriptures, and turned his life to the truth, is, as it were, from being a man made a god.
. . . .
And if those also who follow heresies venture to avail themselves of the prophetic Scriptures; in the first place they will not make use of all the Scriptures, and then they will not quote them entire, nor as the body and texture of prophecy prescribe. But, selecting ambiguous expressions, they wrest them to their own opinions, gathering a few expressions here and there; not looking to the sense, but making use of the mere words. For in almost all the quotations they make, you will find that they attend to the names alone, while they alter the meanings; neither knowing, as they affirm, nor using the quotations they adduce, according to their true nature.
. . . .
For, in consequence of not learning the mysteries of ecclesiastical knowledge, and not having capacity for the grandeur of the truth, too indolent to descend to the bottom of things, reading superficially, they have dismissed the Scriptures.
. . . .
But if one is curable, able to bear (like fire or steel) the outspokenness of the truth, which cuts away and burns their false opinions, let him lend the ears of the soul. And this will be the case, unless, through the propensity to sloth, they push truth away, or through the desire of fame, endeavour to invent novelties. For those are slothful who, having it in their power to provide themselves with proper proofs for the divine Scriptures from the Scriptures themselves, select only what contributes to their own pleasures. And those have a craving for glory who voluntarily evade, by arguments of a diverse sort, the things delivered by the blessed apostles and teachers, which are wedded to inspired words; opposing the divine tradition by human teachings, in order to establish the heresy. For, in truth, what remained to be said–in ecclesiastical knowledge I mean–by such men, Marcion, for example, or Prodicus, and such like, who did not walk in the right way? For they could not have surpassed their predecessors in wisdom, so as to discover anything in addition to what had been uttered by them; for they would have been satisfied had they been able to learn the things laid down before.

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 . . . nothing but deeds and words corresponding to the tradition of the Lord.”
[St. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata VII, 16]

**As can be seen in the boldfaced portions above, Clement speaks highly of the “ecclesiastical tradition,” but he also calls this the “divine tradition,” which he describes as “delivered by the blessed apostles and teachers, which are wedded to inspired words.” This is interesting language. He says the divine tradition is connected inseparably to inspired words—or at least that is how I read the word wedded here. If my reading is right, then Clement is saying that the ecclesiastical tradition cannot be separated from inspired words, i.e., the Scriptures. In other words, the ecclesiastical tradition comes directly from the Scriptures. This seems to be confirmed in the following part, which occurs immediately after the first paragraph that you quoted: **

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.

He says that the source of teaching is the Lord, and that teaching is by, or through, the prophets, the Gospel and the blessed apostles. It could be that here he is referring to the Old Testament (“the prophets”) and the New Testament (“the Gospel, and the blessed apostles”), though I am not sure about that.

 

[Koineman]

Response to second citation of Clement, part 2:

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.

Here he says that the Scripture and the voice of the Lord are used as a criterion to discover things. He then goes on to say the exclusive nature of that criterion:

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/

**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.

This part from the beginning of 7.16 should be quoted as well:**

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.

and this, after the second paragraph you quoted:

But the truth is not found by changing the meanings (for so people subvert all true teaching), but in the consideration of what perfectly belongs to and becomes the Sovereign God, and in establishing each one of the points demonstrated in the Scriptures again from similar Scriptures.

**He says here that the points that are demonstrated in the Scriptures should be further established by other, similar Scriptures.

So what do we make of all of this? 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.**

 

[jimmy]

It might be best to define tradition first. You need to define the terms of the debate before you can have an accurate debate.

There is variety in the teachings of the fathers in relationship to tradition. Gregory Nazianzen saw the revelation of the Divinity of the Holy Spirit through the Life of the Church. Basil of Caesarea on the other hand repeatedly asserts that the scriptures are the only source of doctrine. Vincent of Lerons argues that we are to believe ‘what has been believed always, everywhere, and by all’. That is the test of the true faith.

I would also like to point out that it is easy to misinterpret the fathers because we tend to read back into their writings the controversies of today.

 

[thenobes]

Continuing on with Cyril:

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, Lecture XII, section 5:

1. And first let us inquire for what cause Jesus came down. Now mind not my argumentations, for perhaps thou mayest be misled but unless thou receive testimony of the Prophets on each matter, believe not what I say: unless thou learn from the Holy Scriptures concerning the Virgin, and the place, the time, and the manner, receive not testimony from man. For one who at present thus teaches may possibly be suspected: but what man of sense will suspect one that prophesied a thousand and more years beforehand? If then thou seekest the cause of Christ’s coming, go back to the first book of the Scriptures. In six days God made the world: but the world was for man. The sun however resplendent with bright beams, yet was made to give light to man, yea, and all living creatures were formed to serve us: herbs and trees were created for our enjoyment. All the works of creation were good, but none of these was an image of God, save man only. The sun was formed by a mere command, but man by God’s hands: Let us make man after our image, and after our likeness. A wooden image of an earthly king is held in honour; holy much more a rational image of God?

I’m not certain. This seems to apply only to specific teaching only (for what cause Jesus came down) to be supported by specific prophetic pasages in the OT (1000 or more yrs?).

peace
steve

 

[thenobes]

Having gone through Irenaeus’ work at length, I decided to quote another father: St. Cyril of Jerusalem. This particular quote seems to be a popular one, as evidenced by its widespread appearance on the Internet. I checked the context, both before and after this text, and there did not seem to be anything related to the role of the Scriptures. Perhaps somewhere else in the Catechetical Lectures he goes into more detail on this, but for now:

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, Lecture IV, section 17:

1. Have thou ever in thy mind this seal, which for the present has been lightly touched in my discourse, by way of summary, but shall be stated, should the Lord permit, to the best of my power with the proof from the Scriptures. For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.

The problem with this is that according to what he says, if there is an alternate teaching which agrees with the scripture but conflicts with his teaching, he has given you no idea how to choose one above the other. He says the salvation he believes in depends on he scripture, but does not speak of any other possible.

peace
steve

 

[Koineman]

It might be best to define tradition first. You need to define the terms of the debate before you can have an accurate debate.

First, we are not debating. This thread is not a debate.

Second, I think both Fr of Jazz and I understand that when we speak of tradition, we are referring to Sacred Tradition.

There is variety in the teachings of the fathers in relationship to tradition. Gregory Nazianzen saw the revelation of the Divinity of the Holy Spirit through the Life of the Church. Basil of Caesarea on the other hand repeatedly asserts that the scriptures are the only source of doctrine. Vincent of Lerons argues that we are to believe ‘what has been believed always, everywhere, and by all’. That is the test of the true faith.

I agree: There is great variety among the CFs regarding the role of Scripture and tradition. As we have seen, Tertullian and Irenaeus ascribe great weight to the tradition of the church, whereas St. Cyril has a markedly different view.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Response to your first citation of St. Clement of Alexandria:

**He essentially says that it is good and right for wisdom to be passed from one person to another and that both oral and written proclamation of the Word are good. The true tradition has come to them in an unbroken line from the apostles.

So, what he focuses on here is the passing on of tradition from “fathers” to “sons”—from the apostles to their “sons,” and from them in turn to their “sons,” and so on. In fact, he quotes from 2 Timothy 2: “And the things which thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.”

It’s important to call attention to the fact that Clement does not compare Scripture with Tradition in this text (unless I’ve missed something); he does not indicate either one as having authority over the other. All he seems to be focused on is the passing on of teaching from the apostles down to his time.
**

Stromata is the last in a series of works by Clement to reach cultured pagan Greeks with the Gospel and show the continuity of the Christian message with philosophy’s highest ideals. In his introduction, which in classical rhetoric announces the subject and purpose of the discourse and lays the foundation for all that will follow, he notes that in pagan education/culture there is a distinction (not separation) between oral transmission and written. In #3 he notes the same distinction in the transmission of the faith reaffirming this in #6 where he speaks about a twofold husbandry, “the one unwritten, and the other written.” In #8 He speaks about Scripture and #11 he clearly speaks about oral transmission from the time of the apostles, tradition. This distinction pervades all his discussion. I would call it a kind of comparison.

I completely agree that he and the other Ante-Nicene fathers did not see one as having authority over the other. They saw and lived Scripture and Tradition and Church as a united and interrelated process of handing on the faith. Giving the individual’s interpretation of Scripture authority over the united process of STC was unknown to the Ante-Nicene fathers we have studied including Clement. These Fathers and councils saw all three as united. It is correct that they did not see one as having authority over the other.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Response to your second citation of St. Clement of Alexandria (part 1 of 2):

**As can be seen in the boldfaced portions above, Clement speaks highly of the “ecclesiastical tradition,” but he also calls this the “divine tradition,” which he describes as “delivered by the blessed apostles and teachers, which are wedded to inspired words.” This is interesting language. He says the divine tradition is connected inseparably to inspired words—or at least that is how I read the word wedded here. If my reading is right, then Clement is saying that the ecclesiastical tradition cannot be separated from inspired words, i.e., the Scriptures. In other words, the ecclesiastical tradition comes directly from the Scriptures. This seems to be confirmed in the following part, which occurs immediately after the first paragraph that you quoted: **

Agreed, in his view ecclesiastical tradition cannot be separated from inspired words, i.e., the Scriptures.
I would, however, take issue here with your conclusion that he means Tradition comes from Scripture, for these reasons.
(1) He never departs form his initial distinction between oral tradition versus written.
(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).

Text and oral transmission in the Church were always wedded in his writing because they stem from one source, apostolic teaching transmitting the Gospel of Christ. I would say that’s his operative principle.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

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 . . . nothing but deeds and words corresponding to the tradition of the Lord.”

He says here that the points that are demonstrated in the Scriptures should be further established by other, similar Scriptures.

Don’t forget to take into account VII, 15.

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; for neither prophecy nor the Savior Himself announced the divine mysteries simply so as to be easily apprehended by all and sundry, but express them in parables. The apostles accordingly say of the Lord, that “He spake all things in parables, and without a parable spake He nothing unto them;” and if “all things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made,” consequently also prophecy and the law were by Him, and were spoken by Him in parables. “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.

Note also in VII, 16, taken as a whole, he follows through with his initial distinction of written and unwritten and always includes the church in a process that is never separated and with none of the three over against the other but instead supporting each other.

. . . . 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. So if you mean ultimate authority in the Reformation SS sense, I would have to say he does not make this claim. If by “ultimate authority” you mean 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, then I agree. But you’ll note that in his writing Scripture is always within Tradition and Church which preceded it 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 the end he never departs from the introduction about the unified transmission of the faith: “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 don’t see how he could go into the SS column.

 

[Koineman]

Agreed, in his view ecclesiastical tradition cannot be separated from inspired words, i.e., the Scriptures.
I would, however, take issue here with your conclusion that he means Tradition comes from Scripture, for these reasons.
(1) He never departs form his initial distinction between oral tradition versus written.

In the following post I made (labeled part 2), he does seem to set the Scripture apart as the only criterion to judge truth; hence he is making such a distinction. Here is that text again:

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

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.

(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).

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.

Text and oral transmission in the Church were always wedded in his writing because they stem from one source, apostolic teaching transmitting the Gospel of Christ. I would say that’s his operative principle.

I don’t think this is entirely in accordance with what Clement wrote. Here is a part that I quoted earlier:

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.

The only source he mentions is the Lord; the conduit through which that source comes to us is “the prophets, the Gospel, and the blessed apostles.” He says there is one origin, or source, and then he distinguishes that from the means by which that source gets to us. This is markedly different from your claim that the source is “apostolic teaching.”

 

[AmbroseSJ]

There’s no need to reinvent the wheel. If there was ANY church father that taught SS, you can be SURE it was stressed and taught at the onset of the Reformation. But no Father was ever found to teach SS (not with the Reformation understanding that is) for the simple reason that it was the singular vehicle for heresy. That is, privately interpreting the Scriptures in defiance of Church Doctrine. All of the heretics were united in this. They all tried to persuade their followers that Scripture was on their side and that the Church (Sacred Tradition) was in error. It was always Sacred Tradition that decided the outcome, and not privately interpreted Scripture. The Reformation actually focused and distilled all of the old ancient heresies into this one overarching error.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

In the following post I made (labeled part 2), he does seem to set the Scripture apart as the only criterion to judge truth; hence he is making such a distinction. Here is that text again:

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

If one takes into consideration the whole of this work, he maintains the Lord’s word is transmitted authoritatively by the united process of STC.

(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).

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.

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.

I don’t think this is entirely in accordance with what Clement wrote. Here is a part that I quoted earlier:

The only source he mentions is the Lord; the conduit through which that source comes to us is “the prophets, the Gospel, and the blessed apostles.” He says there is one origin, or source, and then he distinguishes that from the means by which that source gets to us. This is markedly different from your claim that the source is “apostolic teaching.”

What I said–to be fair–was “apostolic teaching transmitting the Gospel of Christ.” My import was the same as yours. Your formulation here is in accord with my meaning. I was echoing his own statement about unwritten speech given by “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)

Although I think one would have to say for Clement there is the Lord, then the word of Lord, and then the means by which that word reaches us. The source isn’t just the God in Himself: it is the fact that He has spoken a word to us.

 

[Koineman]

There’s no need to reinvent the wheel. If there was ANY church father that taught SS, you can be SURE it was stressed and taught at the onset of the Reformation. But no Father was ever found to teach SS (not with the Reformation understanding that is) for the simple reason that it was the singular vehicle for heresy. That is, privately interpreting the Scriptures in defiance of Church Doctrine. All of the heretics were united in this. They all tried to persuade their followers that Scripture was on their side and that the Church (Sacred Tradition) was in error. It was always Sacred Tradition that decided the outcome, and not privately interpreted Scripture. The Reformation actually focused and distilled all of the old ancient heresies into this one overarching error.

This thread is not intended to be a polemical debate between the two positions, whereby both sides fire accusations at each other back and forth. There is enough of that on the Internet, and it was the reason for my initial reluctance to even engage in this sort of discussion (it was Fr of Jazz’s idea to begin with). The purpose of this thread is to examine what the church fathers say on this issue. Polemics will get us nowhere and, in fact, will only keep us from looking objectively at what the Fathers said, since polemics are usually driven by extreme bias stemming from one’s being firmly entrenched in a particular system.

 

[Koineman]

Fr of Jazz, I plan to respond to your recent posts later on, but that will be the final response I make regarding our difference of opinion regarding Clement. Already we are degenerating into a back-and-forth debate that is likely going to get us nowhere. Witness the insinuations that have already been made (which I referenced in another post) as well as the recent, caustic interjection of another poster who obviously just wants to fight.

So, out of respect for you, I will make one final response that addresses your recent disagreements, and if you wish to disagree again in response, of course that is your prerogative, but I likely will not respond but instead will move on to another church father.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

This thread is not intended to be a polemical debate between the two positions, whereby both sides fire accusations at each other back and forth. There is enough of that on the Internet, and it was the reason for my initial reluctance to even engage in this sort of discussion (it was Fr of Jazz’s idea to begin with). The purpose of this thread is to examine what the church fathers say on this issue. Polemics will get us nowhere and, in fact, will only keep us from looking objectively at what the Fathers said, since polemics are usually driven by extreme bias stemming from one’s being firmly entrenched in a particular system.

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.

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.)

Try it. PM Fr of Jazz and keep this thread going, but private, and just between the two of you.