Really? You do understand, don;t you, that not one verse in your NT canon would be there but for the bishops of The Church who, using Holy Tradition as the measure, said it was OK for Christians to use them because, d, what they teach is in accord with what The Church "always and everywhere believed"? Tell, d, what did the HS inspire any protestant preacher or divine to add to the canon of the NT as established by The Church?
Now, as for your citations, well, it looks like the old proof text generator has a bug in its software. What in heaven's name do they have to do with the issue at hand? It isn't that the NT's claims are factually self authenticating is it?. Tell me you don't mean that!
"By the time of Jesus a distinct body of writing referred to as Scripture was already realized, without an assuredly infallible magisterium (which only Jesus was),..."
Which "distinct body of writing" was infallibly and magisterially realized by Christ? Leave out the "infallible" part. What distinct body of writing, other than the Septuagint, with all its variations, are you talking about?
"What Trent finally, decisively did (for Rome) was to recognize and ratify what had progressively become established, though i hold that that there was sound reason for great men to reject the apocrypha as Scripture, as i do, though not as forbidden reading."
What the Latin's local Council of Trent did is neither here nor there for me. It certainly isn't religiously "necessary" for nor binding upon me. I'm Orthodox. What I care about is "what The Church always and everywhere believed."
"But what they mean is that all must be tested for conformity by the only objective source which we are assured is wholly inspired of God, and thus is assuredly infallibly, and by such bring every thought to the obedience of Christ"
What is the objective source which we are assured is wholly inspired by God? Is it the NT, with all its variations? OK. What exactly about it is "infallible"? It is a book, d. Are books "infallible"?
"While interpretation requires discernment, and leaves room for a limited amount of disagreement in some things more than others, the same is true in every day life, with sound reasoning versus aberration being more demonstrable in accordance with the degree of revelation. And the “main and plain” things of Scripture are basically just that, and thus those who hold to SS most universally agree with Rome on such core essentials as an articulated in the Nicene Creed, while contending against those which are more based upon a nebulous oral tradition, and which in turn has the magisterium as its authority. And even teachings by church magisteriums require some interpretation, including which ones are “infallible.”"
Again, I couldn't possibly care less what Rome, the parent of all protestants in The Faith and to whom you all should show respect, says about interpretation of Scripture through the Magisterium. If you want to accept, for example, such "core essentials" as the Frankish innovation of the filioque, that's between you folks and Rome. I have no idea what you mean when you write of core essentials "...which are more based upon a nebulous oral tradition, and which in turn has the magisterium as its authority. Again, I'm Orthodox. For us, Holy Tradition is not based on anyone's Magisterium.
"Moreover, many things were not unanimously believed by church fathers."
I know. That's why we look to the consensus patrum on matters of patristic theology and not what any one, fallible, Father might have said.
"the classic concept of tradition as a particular way of reading and interpreting scripture is retained."
Whose or what "classic concept of tradition"? "Scripture, tradition and the kerygma are regarded as essentially coinherent, and as being transmitted, propagated and safeguarded by the community of faith."
I love it when protestants use Greek terms, even if they often use them incorrectly. Orthodoxy has always preserved the kerygma of the Apostles. Read this by Fr. Georges Florovsky, one of the greatest Orthodox theologians of the 20th century. It will explain where we are coming from: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/florov_fathers.aspx
I understand that there would have no church or bishops but for God establishing men and writings as being from Him, by the means i described.
My statements did not deny the efficacy of conciliar lists, nor the Biblical basis for the church magisterium behind them, but why something gets included is the issue. The bishops of The Church did not make Scripture inspired, and as it is, then it has a power all its own, and no matter what such authorities affirm or deny, the manna from heaven will be manifests as such due to its effects. The church is a supernatural entity, whose faith realizes effects which correspond to the claims of manifest men of God and their writings, and what they believed was related to why they believed it.
And while oral tradition usually came before written, does a common ground sanctify both tares and wheat? As traditions of men can become taught as truth from God, as the Jewish “bishops” did, thus should what is held as Scripture be based upon such authority as if they were infallible? Or was it by the above means that writings were progressively recognized as Divine, and the canon being closed, nothing should be held as equal, and all be subject to conflation to it.
Tell, d, what did the HS inspire any protestant preacher or divine to add to the canon of the NT as established by The Church?
Thank God if they did not make anything equal with that within a closed, Divinely established canon. That it inherited things from other churches does not make the latter infallible or supreme any more than it makes the Jews today.
Now, as for your citations, well, it looks like the old proof text generator has a bug in its software. What in heaven's name do they have to do with the issue at hand?
The have to with whether men can teach whatever they judge among traditions to be of God, or whether judgment is bound to be most supremely subject to what has been prior established as being of God, the Scriptures. This does not reject “tradition” from being considered, and within Protestantism what its founders said and did has some consideration, but what is the supreme source by which all is tested is the issue, and what really establishes it.
It isn't that the NT's claims are factually self authenticating is it?. Tell me you don't mean that!
Don't tell me you believe councils are infallible, but we have no Scripture that is. Not self authenticating, but God-authenticating as truth, using men who believed it and realized its effects, which conformed to and complemented that which was prior established as being of God. Again, Biblically, God made Himself real to Abraham and he believed, God supernaturally attested to his faith and overall morality, which established him as a friend of God and through whom a holy nation was born. Moses was established as "the man of God" due to his holiness and faith which conformed to that which was prior testified to as from God, to whom more was revealed, and whose authority God mightily supernaturally attested to, and who provided the written law. And in like manner the apostles where established,and added more to Scripture. (2Cor. 6:1-10; 12:12; 2Pt. 3:16)
What is the objective source which we are assured is wholly inspired by God? Is it the NT, with all its variations?
What was Paul referring to when he wrote 2Tim. 3:16? Or the author Ps. 19? It is only the originals that were called God's word or Scripture?
OK. What exactly about it is "infallible"? It is a book, d. Are books "infallible"?
“The Lord gave the word: great was the company of those that published it.” (Ps. 68:11) Not by literal presses then, but while the inspiration was pure, men where/are responsible for its future transmission, and discernment is required when faced with variants, but which do not make or break a doctrine or render books to not be Scripture, which texts from copies and from the LXX were called even with its manuscript variations.
Which "distinct body of writing" was infallibly and magisterially realized by Christ? Leave out the "infallible" part. What distinct body of writing, other than the Septuagint, with all its variations, are you talking about?
Why leave out the LXX? Jesus did need the original manuscripts to called something Scripture. And the fact that He and others did testifies to their being a source called Scripture, which cannot lose its force, and which He much referenced. Likewise the Scriptures abound with references to that which was written.
As for “distinct,” no, we have not full list from then, but the fact that there was such a things as the Scripture separates them from that which was not.
Again, I couldn't possibly care less what Rome, the parent of all protestants in The Faith and to whom you all should show respect,
To the degree that it is the church today that it was when it contended for such Scriptural essentials we agree on, yes, just as we should to Judaism, and to the Jews, though due to the national character of the latter there is a difference. Roman Catholics could also admit the Reformation resulted in needed beneficial reformative effects on itself (and in finally concluding any internal debate on the canon), and in expanding the kingdom of God, even if by “separated brethren.”
I have no idea what you mean when you write of core essentials "...which are more based upon a nebulous oral tradition, and which in turn has the magisterium as its authority.
The sentence runs, “the “main and plain” things of Scripture are basically just that, and thus those who hold to SS most universally agree with Rome on such core essentials as an articulated in the Nicene Creed, while contending against those which are more based upon a nebulous oral tradition.”
SS means Sola Scriptura, while the latter refers to such practices a praying to the departed.
Whose or what "classic concept of tradition"?
The main issue i see in all this is whether a class of men by whom Scripture was discerned assuredly pass on the same discernment via formal ecclesiastical lineage, so that those in one church can teach extra-scriptural and counter-scriptural traditions as being from God, based upon their authority, or whether all must be subject to writings which have been established as from God essentially due to their inherent qualities.
The Orthodox say, “The interpretation of Scripture, even as a guide to personal faith and ethical conduct, is unthinkable apart from the fullness of tradition:..The Holy Spirit abides in the covenanted fellowship, and personal experience, to be fruitful, is confirmed by the Spirit.” But by what is the authority of those who decide what the fullness of tradition is established, and if extra-scriptural traditions are as binding (i assume) as those clearly expressed in Scripture, based upon the same-source logic, then is the canon really closed?
Orthodoxy has always preserved the kerygma of the Apostles. Read this by Fr. Georges Florovsky,
Who says they do? How do we know that the Pharisees were wrong in some of their traditions? When the Orthodox disagree with the RC's then who/what decides the truth???
Thanks for the link. I also found this interesting previously: http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/papalinfallibility.pdf
"To follow the Fathers" does not mean simply to quote their sentences. It means to acquire their mind, their phronema.”
Applicable to studying the Scriptures, but which the apostles preaching was judged. I will read more.