The Perspicuity and Formal Sufficiency of Scripture
“All things are clear and open that are in the divine Scriptures; the necessary things are all plain. But because ye are hearers for pleasure's sake, for that reason also you seek these things. For tell me, with what pomp of words did Paul speak? and yet he converted the world. Or with what the unlettered Peter? But I know not, you sub the things that are contained in the Scriptures. Why? For are they spoken in Hebrew? Are they in Latin, or in foreign tongues? Are they not in Greek? But they are expressed obscurely, you say: What is it that is obscure? Tell me.”
-John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Second Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians, Homily 3.
-
2 comments:
Catz--
Saying that Scripture is clear with respect to some particularly important issues does not imply that the interpretive decisions of hierarchs are not binding, or that there is not an inherited, oral tradition that infallibly interprets Scripture. What do you mean by "formally sufficient" here?
Also, how do you interpret this quote from Chrysostom?
”So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by Epistle of ours.’ Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also 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.”
Chrysostom, 2 Thessalonians, Homily 4:2.
Our view seems compatible with this quote, whereas Sola Scriptura does not.
Hey MG, good to hear from you. Sorry about the late responses. The real world called me and I answered irresistibly.
Anyway,
“Saying that Scripture is clear with respect to some particularly important issues does not imply that the interpretive decisions of hierarchs are not binding, or that there is not an inherited, oral tradition that infallibly interprets Scripture. What do you mean by "formally sufficient" here?”
Here is how I am using the term: Formally sufficient: all that is necessary for faith in Christ is clearly revealed by God. This does not entail that all things in Scripture will be clear to anyone who reads them.
As for an infallible oral tradition…I think you are trying to get at this in your next quote so I will address that.
“Also, how do you interpret this quote from Chrysostom?”
I think it fairly possible he meant no more than what Basil meant when he spoke of an unwritten tradition. Also, I see nothing here to indicate a belief in infallible interpretations. The quote I provided would seem to be against the necessity of an infallible interpretation of “the necessary things”.
In addition, it is interesting what Chrysostom says in his sermon on 2 Timothy 3:16-17 when he clearly identifies Scripture as being in the place of an apostle. This makes sense after all since it is their very words.
“Our view seems compatible with this quote, whereas Sola Scriptura does not.”
I think you might be reading more into his writings than is present. Still, perhaps we will just have to respectfully disagree on this.
Post a Comment