xonkius

"SACRED SCRIPTURE ALONE, OR THE WORD OF GOD ALONE, IS THE PRINCIPLE OF THEOLOGY."—Theophan Prokopovich

I forgot to reply to this but anyways; I don't really think Theofan, Philaret, Basil, Chrysostom, Macarius, and Anthony are in direct opposition on this matter, I see them as complimentary with different emphasis. Theofan saying that Holy Scripture alone is the principle of theology is moreso in the scholastic sense that no dogma may be imposed as divinely revealed unless it is grounded in the Word of God, either explicitly or implicitly, which isn't a denial of Holy Tradition as the living apostolic transmission of revelation in the Church and this can be demonstrated just by examining dogmatic definitions of all such binding Councils that we have from the first 7 Ecumenical Councils to Palamite Synods to Jerusalem 1672 and such, they are all primarily based in Scripture which is what the Archbishop is demonstrating. In fact, the Archbishop himself distinguishes several kinds of tradition and doesn't reject things like apostolic rites, ecclesial interpretation, conciliar authority, or traditions virtually contained in Scripture; he rejects only alleged unwritten dogmas not found either expressly or virtually in Scripture. St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom rightly teach that not everything apostolic was written and that unwritten apostolic traditions have authority for piety, of course, while St. Philaret, Macarius, and Anthony's expositions give us a fuller image and I'd put it like basically: Divine Revelation is preserved in the Church through both Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, and Scripture must be interpreted within the Church’s living Tradition. And that isn't opposed to Perspicuity of Scripture either as Theofan puts it, since Sts. Basil and John themselves affirm it firmly, but that's not to say that people can't distort the Scripture using their own faulty reasoning or that the interpretive tradition of the Church isn't needed.

I forgot to reply to this but anyways; I don't really think Theofan, Philaret, Basil, Chrysostom, Macarius, and Anthony are in direct opposition on this matter, I see them as complimentary with different emphasis. Theofan saying that Holy Scripture alone is the principle of theology is moreso in the scholastic sense that no dogma may be imposed as divinely revealed unless it is grounded in the Word of God, either explicitly or implicitly, which isn't a denial of Holy Tradition as the living apostolic transmission of revelation in the Church and this can be demonstrated just by examining dogmatic definitions of all such binding Councils that we have from the first 7 Ecumenical Councils to Palamite Synods to Jerusalem 1672 and such, they are all primarily based in Scripture which is what the Archbishop is demonstrating. In fact, the Archbishop himself distinguishes several kinds of tradition and doesn't reject things like apostolic rites, ecclesial interpretation, conciliar authority, or traditions virtually contained in Scripture; he rejects only alleged unwritten dogmas not found either expressly or virtually in Scripture. St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom rightly teach that not everything apostolic was written and that unwritten apostolic traditions have authority for piety, of course, while St. Philaret, Macarius, and Anthony's expositions give us a fuller image and I'd put it like basically: Divine Revelation is preserved in the Church through both Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, and Scripture must be interpreted within the Church’s living Tradition. And that isn't opposed to Perspicuity of Scripture either as Theofan puts it, since Sts. Basil and John themselves affirm it firmly, but that's not to say that people can't distort the Scripture using their own faulty reasoning or that the interpretive tradition of the Church isn't needed.

Compiled quotes on the topic of Christ's righteousness or merits being imputed to, or appropriated by, or given as covering to, or possessed by, believers – a thread 🧵

How much does Dyer pay you bots to white knight for him in the replies of any post that is critical of him?

Lol, Craig Truglia still uses "apologists" as an insult, as if he's not exactly that This argument is really funny, as well, because he didn't understand that Christ isn't said to be the "New Adam" explictly in the Adam-Christ parallels, it's derived from the comparison itself