Did Gregory of Nyssa Teach Sola Scriptura? [Part 2]

 

In continuation from part 1, we are now looking at what Gregory said about Scripture which suggests he held to sola scriptura or something like it. 

On the Holy Trinity (to Eustathius)

"But the ground of their complaint is that their custom does not admit this, and Scripture does not support it. What then is our reply? We do not think that it is right to make their prevailing custom the law and rule of sound doctrine. For if custom is to avail for proof of soundness, we too, surely, may advance our prevailing custom; and if they reject this, we are surely not bound to follow theirs. Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2904.htm)

Against Eunomius 3.1

"And if he says that he has some of the saints who declared Him to be a slave, or created, or made, or any of these lowly and servile names, lo, here are the Scriptures. Let him, or some other on his behalf, produce to us one such phrase, and we will hold our peace. But if there is no such phrase (and there could never be found in those inspired Scriptures which we believe any such thought as to support this impiety), what need is there to strive further upon points admitted with one who not only misrepresents the words of the saints, but even contends against his own definitions?" (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/290103.htm)

On the Soul and Resurrection

"we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings." (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2915.htm)

Granville Sharpe's Rule and the Deity of Christ

 

In discussing the deity of Christ, there are many common texts we go to: Mark 2, John 1, John 8:58, Philippians 2, Colossians 1, etc. However, there are also other uncommon texts (two in particular, which we will examine in this article). And there is a Greek construction contained in them known as the Granville Sharpe rule which shows how these texts explicitly call the Lord Jesus "God", thus proving His deity.

Here are the texts in question:

"waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ," (Titus 2:13 ESV)

"To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 1:1 ESV)

προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ⸂Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ⸃, (Titus 2:13 SBL)

Συμεὼν Πέτρος δοῦλος καὶ ἀπόστολος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῖς ἰσότιμον ἡμῖν λαχοῦσιν πίστιν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ· (2 Peter 1:1 ESV)

In both of these texts, a Greek construction known as the Granville Sharpe Rule occurs. In this article, I will discuss this rule, the debates surrounding it, and how it ultimately shows that Jesus is God.

What is the Granville Sharpe Rule?

Here are some basic definitions given of the Granville Sharpe Rule:

“When the copulative kai connects two nouns of the same case, [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description, respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connexion, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill], if the article ho, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle” (Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article, pg. 3)

"Basically, Granville Sharp’s rule states that when you have two nouns, which are not proper names (such as Cephas, or Paul, or Timothy), which are describing a person, and the two nouns are connected by the word “and,” and the first noun has the article (“the”) while the second does not, *both nouns are referring to the same person*. " (https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/general-apologetics/granville-sharps-rule/#4.)

This construction is basically this: ARTICLE-SUBSTANTIVE-"KAI"-SUBSTANTIVE. From now on, we will refer to it as TSKS (the acronym used in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics by Daniel B. Wallace). 

According to Sharpe, there are three requirements in a particular TSKS construction for the second noun to have the same antecedent as the first noun:

1) neither is impersonal

2) neither is plural

3) neither is a proper name

This third conditional rule above is important in our discussion of Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 (our christological texts), and I will give more detail in that particular area later on in this article.

Some NT Examples of TSKS

Below are a few passages in which the TSKS construction occurs (the way it does in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1), where both nouns have the same antecedent, due to the Greek article being only in front of the first noun, and the conjunction kai between the two nouns.

(The antecedent noun will be in blue while the substantives will be in red)

"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James...?" (Mark 6:3 ESV)

οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τέκτων, ὁ υἱὸς ⸀τῆς Μαρίας ⸂καὶ ἀδελφὸς⸃ Ἰακώβου (Mark 6:3 SBL)

"Tychicus the beloved brother and faithful minister" (Ephesians 6:21)

Τυχικὸς ὁ ἀγαπητὸς ἀδελφὸς καὶ πιστὸς διάκονος (Ephesians 6:21 SBL)

"consider Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our confession, " (Hebrews 3:1 ESV)

τὸν ἀπόστολον καὶ ἀρχιερέα τῆς ὁμολογίας ἡμῶν ⸀Ἰησοῦν (Hebrews 3:1 SBL)

" I, John, your brother and partner" (Revelation 1:9 ESV)

Ἐγὼ Ἰωάννης, ὁ ἀδελφὸς ὑμῶν καὶ ⸀συγκοινωνὸς (Revelation 1:9 SBL)

"our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. " (2 Peter 1:11 ESV)

 τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. (2 Peter 1:11 SBL)

In all of the above passages, it is quite obvious that both nouns are referring to the same person/antecedent. Therefore, the same should be said of Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1, where "God" and "Savior", two nouns, have the same antecedent, i.e. "Jesus Christ".

However, a popular objection to Titus 2:13 as being an example of TSKS (and hence the Granville Sharpe Rule), is the idea that theos is a proper name. Here is the problem with that argument: a "proper" noun can be basically defined as a noun which cannot be pluralized. In other words, the proper noun "David" cannot be turned into "Davids". That wouldn't make any sense whatsoever. However, theos can be pluralized (examples would be the use of theoi in John 10:34 and 1 Cor. 8:5)

Sharpe's Colleagues and Opponents Concede to the Validity of the Rule

The last thing I want to do is provide some material from 19th century writings (when this debate took place amongst Greek grammarians and scholars), which shows scholars and contemporaries admitting that his rule is valid. However, I cannot find all of the books quoted. Yet Daniel Wallace in his famous Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, gives the following summary of 19th century evidence:

"The most formidable foe to Sharp’s rule was Calvin Winstanley (A Vindication of Certain Passages in the Common English Version of the New Testament: Addressed to Granville Sharp, Esq., 2d ed. [Cambridge: University Press–Hilliard and Metcalf, 1819]). Yet even he agreed that Sharp’s principle was generally valid, going so far as to say, “your first rule has a real foundation in the idiom of the language . . .” (36). And further, within the pages of the NT, Winstanley con ceded “There are, you say, no exceptions, in the New Testament, to your rule; that is, I suppose, unless these particular texts [i.e., the ones Sharp used to adduce Christ’s deity] be such. . . . it is nothing surprising to find all these particular texts in question appearing as exceptions to your rule, and the sole exceptions . . . in the New Testament . . .” (39-40)–an obvious concession that he could find no exceptions save for the ones he supposed to exist in the christologically pregnant texts................There is some interesting confirmation of Sharp’s rule, as applied to the christologically pregnant texts, in patristic literature. In 1802 a fellow (and later, master) of Trinity College in Cam bridge, Christopher Wordsworth, published his Six Letters to Granville Sharp, Esq. Respecting his Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article, in the Greek Text of the New Testament (London: F. and C. Rivington, 1802). Wordsworth tested Sharp’s principle in the patristic literature. He felt that if the principle was valid, then the Greek fathers would certainly have understood the christologi cally significant texts in the same way that Sharp had. At one point he gushed, “I fully believe, that there is no one exception to your first rule in the whole New Testament: and the assertion might be extended infinitely further” (ibid., 103). After an exhaustive investigation, from Greek Christian literature covering a span of over 1000 years, Wordsworth was able to make the astounding comment, “I have observed . . . some hundreds of instances of the ho megas thou kai soter (Tit. ii. 13); and not fewer than several thousands of the form o theos kai soter (2 Pet. i. 1.)[,] while in no single case, have I seen (where the sense could be determined) any of them used, but only of one person” (ibid., 132). Therefore, as far as Wordsworth was concerned, the TSKS constructions which involve the deity of Christ, both in the NT and in the Greek church fathers, were never ambiguous, but fully supported Sharp’s proposition." (Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, pgs. 273, 277)

Another Greek Grammarian's View

"The arguments for Paul’s identification of tou megalou theou … hemon, “our great God,” and ‘Iesou, “Jesus,” ARE impressive…(1) theou, “God,” and soteros, “savior,” are both governed by the same article, and according to Granville Sharp’s rule they therefore refer to the same person (Robertson, Grammar, 785-89; Zerwick, Biblical Greek, 59-60; Harris, “Titus 2:13,” 267-69; Wallace, Greek Grammar, 270-90). For example, 2 Cor 1:2 speaks of ho theos kai pater, “the God and Father,” both terms referring to the same person. As Wallace clarifies Sharp’s own qualifiers, the rule applies “only with personal, singular, and non-proper nouns” (Greek Grammar, 272) and indicates some degree of unity between the two words, possibly equality or identity (270). When understood as Sharp intended, there are no exceptions in the NT to the rule (although on theological grounds, not grammatical, the rule has been questioned here and in 2 Pet 1:1; cf. Wallace, Greek Grammar, 273 n. 50, and further bibliography at 273 n. 50 and 276 n. 55). If soteros referred to a second person, it would have been preceded by the article. However, this is not to make the mistake of modalism, which sees only one God appearing in different modes (cf. Grudem, Systematic Theology, 242). God the Father and God the Son are not identical in orthodox theology; the Son is God, but he is not the Father. Wallace and Robertson (Exp 21 [1921] 185-87) both describe the force of G. B. Winer’s refusal (A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament [Andover, MA: Draper, 1869] 130) to accept Sharp’s rule for theological and not grammatical reasons. Speaking of the same construction in 2 Pet 1:1, 11, Robertson is direct in his critique: “The simple truth is that Winer’s anti-Trinitarian prejudice overruled his grammatical rectitude in his remarks about 2 Peter i. 1” (Exp 21 [1921] 185); and the influence that Winer exerted as a grammarian has influenced other grammarians and several generations of scholars.   The grammatical counterargument is that soter, “savior,” like other technical terms and proper names, tends to be anarthrous; but “God” (Wallace, Greek Grammar, 272, n. 42), and soter (Harris, “Titus 2:13,” 268) are not proper names. theos is not a personal proper name because it can be made plural (theoi, “gods”; cf. Wallace, Greek Grammar, 272, n. 42). Proper nouns are usually anarthrous since they are inherently definite, but theos is almost always articular unless other grammatical rules require the article to be dropped in specific contexts. theos occurs frequently in the TSKS (article-substantive-kai-substantive) construction to which Sharp’s rule applies (Luke 20:37; John 20:27; Rom 15:6; 1 Cor 15:24; 2 Cor 1:3; 11:31; Gal 1:4; Eph 1:3; Phil 4:20; 1 Thess 1:3; 3:11, 13; Jas 1:27; 1 Pet 1:3; Rev 1:6), always in reference to one person (cf. Wallace, “Sharp Redivivus?” 46-47). In the PE soter occurs in eight other passages, seven of which are articular (1 Tim 2:3; 2 Tim 1:10; Titus 1:3, 4; 2:10; 3:4, 6). The only other anarthrous use of soter in the PE is in 1 Tim 1:1, where it is anarthrous in accordance with Apollonius’s Canon (Wallace, Greek Grammar, 250). In other words, in the PE the articular construction is the rule, suggesting that there is a specific reason for its anarthrous state here. If the question is the grammatical meaning of this text, Sharp’s rule is decisive. If Paul was speaking of two persons, it would have been easy to say so unambiguously (e.g., tou megalou theou kai ‘Iesou Christou tou soteros hemon, “the great God and Jesus Christ our savior,” or tou megalou theou hemon kai tou soteros ‘Iesou Christou, “our great God and the savior Jesus Christ” [Harris, 269]). Instead he chose a form that most naturally reads as one person, ‘Iesou Christou, “Jesus Christ,” which is in apposition to tou megalou theou kai soteros hemon, “our great God and savior.” To say it another way, if Paul did not believe that Jesus was God, it seems highly unlikely that he would have been so sloppy in making such a significant theological statement. If Paul did believe that Jesus was God, it is not a surprise to read this.  (2) The flow of the discussion argues that theou kai soteros, “God and savior,” refers to one person and that the one person is Jesus Christ. (a) Paul begins by saying, “for the grace of God has appeared bringing salvation,” associating God with salvation. Two verses later, without a change of subject, he speaks of theou kai soteros hemon, “our God and savior.” The most natural reading is to continue the association between theou, “God,” and soteros, “savior.” However, since ‘Iesou Christou “Jesus Christ,” most likely stands in apposition to soteros, “savior,” because of their close proximity, Jesus is the God and Savior. (b) Since elpis, “hope,” is personified in the PE as Jesus (see above), Paul begins the verse speaking of Jesus not God the Father (“waiting for the blessed hope, which is the appearing of God, who is Jesus Christ”). (c) The following verse speaks of Jesus’ saving activity. This does not mean that v 13 must be speaking of one person; Paul often changes subjects by adding a relative clause (e.g. Eph 1:7). However, since v 14 does discuss salvation, it strongly suggests that Paul is thinking of Jesus as savior. (This argues against Hort’s position [below] that ‘Iesou Christou, “Jesus Christ,” refers back to tes doxes tou … theou, “the glory of God.”) If God and savior refer to one person (below), and if savior refers to Jesus Christ, then so must God. Lock (145) also points out that the idea of hina lytrosetai, “in order that he might redeem,” which occurs in v 14, is used in the OT of God but here of Christ, implying an equation between the two.   (3) The phrase theos kai soter, “God and savior,” was a set phrase in Hellenistic language… and always referred to one person, such as Ptolemy I (tou megalou theou euergetou kai soteros [epiphanous] eucharistou, “the great god, benefactor, and savior [manifest one,] beneficent one”…; soter kai theos, “savior and god”…), Antiochus Epiphanes (theos epiphanes, “god manifest”…), and Julius Caesar (theos kai soter, “god and savior”…). Moulton comments, “Familiarity with the everlasting apotheosis that flaunts itself in the papyri and inscriptions of Ptolemaic and Imperial times, lends strong support to Wendland’s contention that Christians, from the latter part of i/A.D. onward, deliberately annexed for their Divine Master the phraseology that was impiously arrogated to themselves by some of the worst men” (Grammar 1:84). It was also used by Hellenistic and Palestinian Judaism in reference to God (Dibelius-Conzelmann, 143-46). Since in Hellenism it was a set phrase referring to one Person and Paul is using language that places his gospel in direct confrontation with emperor worship and Ephesian religion…, the phrase most likely refers to one person in this context, not two. This is how it would have been understood in Cretan society. Wallace points out how rare this expression is in the LXX (Esth 5:1; Ps 61:1, 5, without the article; cf. 2 Macc 6:32; Philo Leg. All. 2.56; Praem. 163.5); the MT rarely has an analogous construction (singular-article-noun-waw-noun), and when it does, the LXX uses a different construction in translation (“Sharp Redivivus?” 43). He cites O. Cullmann (The Christology of the New Testament, rev. ed. [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963] 241) in concluding that “Hellenism accounts for the form, Judaism for the context of the expression” (“Sharp Redivivus?” 44). (4) When Paul speaks of the “appearing of the glory of our great God,” he ties “appearing” and “God” together. Yet epiphaneia, “appearing,” in Paul always refers to Jesus’ second coming and never to God. The appearance of God is therefore the appearance of Jesus (2 Thess 2:8; 1 Tim 6:14; 2 Tim 1:9-10; 4:1, 8; Titus 2:13). In fact 1 Tim 6:14 and 2 Tim 1:10 have much the same meaning as our passage and confirm this argument. Although God the Father is involved in the Son’s return, he is not as involved as this would indicate if it refers to two people (Lock 145; Fee, 196). There are two related arguments. (a) If kai, “and,” is epexegtical, epiphaneian, “appearing,” is a restatement of elpida, “hope,” and hope is a personification of Jesus, showing that the appearance is the appearance of Jesus. (b) epiphaneian, “appearing” (v 13), parallels epephane, “appearance,” in v 11, and since in v 11 Paul is speaking of Jesus’ appearance, it is most likely here that he is speaking of Jesus’ second appearance. The counterargument is that the cognate epiphaneian, “to appear,” occurs in Titus 2:11 and 3:4 as part of the description of God the Father; however, these verses speak of God sending Jesus the first time. (5) Marshall (SNTU-A 13 [1988] 174-75) adds the following arguments: (a) Jesus, as Lord, is the judge, which is the sole prerogative of God (2 Tim 4:8); (b) Jesus and God are placed side by side (1 Tim 1:1-2; 5:21; 6:13; 2 Tim 4:1; Titus 1:1; 2:13); (c) both are given the title “savior” (1 Tim 1:15; 2 Tim 1:9; 4:18); (d) spiritual blessings come from both (2 Tim 1:3, 6, 18; 1 Tim 1:12, 14); and (e) both are “objects of the writer’s service” (God: 2 Tim 1:3; 2:15; Titus 1:7; Jesus: 2 Tim 2:3, 24). If Jesus has the position and function of God, then he can “probably” be called God. There are other arguments that are of questionable validity. (1) The early Greek church fathers are nearly unanimous in seeing “God and savior” as referring to Jesus, and it can be assumed that they would know the Greek idiom (not Justin Martyr [1 Apol. 61] and Ambrosiaster; cf. Lock, 145; Harris, “Titus 2:13,” 271). The counterargument is that the early versions are nearly unanimous in seeing two persons in this passage (Latin, Syriac, Egyptian, Armenian, but not Ethiopic) and that the Greek church fathers tended to be controlled more by their theology than by the text itself. Bernard asserts, “The Fathers were far better theologians than critics. Their judgement on a point of doctrine may be trusted with much readier confidence than the arguments by which they support their judgement” (172). Moulton (Grammar 1:84) points out that this appears to be the interpretation of the seventh-century Christians as evidenced by the papyri (cf. en onomati tou kyriou kai despotou ‘Iesou Christou tou theou kai soteros hemon…, “in the name of the Lord and master, Jesus Christ, our God and savior etc.” [BGU 2:366, 367, 368, 371, 395]), but this is quite late. (2) The NT nowhere describes God as megas, “great,” and it is argued that it would be tautological to call God great (Ellicott, 188; Guthrie, 200). But the use of megas, “great,” distinguishes God from the pagan deities, and great is no more than a summary of what Paul says about him in 1 Tim 6:15-16. Harris lists other arguments that he feels are debatable (“Titus 2:13,” 270-71)…Fortunately the doctrine of Christ’s divinity does not rest on this verse. But the question of what Paul is saying here is still important, and it seems that he is making a christological pronouncement on the divinity of Christ. This is the most natural reading of the text, is required by the grammar, concurs with Paul’s use of epiphaneia, “appearing,” accounts for the singular use of the phrase “God and savior” in secular thought, and fits the context well."

(William D. Mounce, Word Biblical Commentary: Pastoral Epistles, pgs. 426-429, 431)               

Exposing the "Open Minded Christian" [a closet Muslim]

 

Recently on YouTube, a user by the name of "Open Minded Christian" has been making the rounds amongst the Muslim-Christian debate corner of the internet. He professes to be a Christian, and yet uploads all sorts of stuff on YouTube where he is having "emotional reactions" to Qur'an recitations (a common clickbait trick amongst YouTubers who sympathize with Islam). He has also openly renounced the Christian faith he once professed and taken the Shahada (conversion to Islam). Thus, he is an apostate. That already shows this man's sinister side. 

In Hebrews 6:4-6, we read the apostates are essentially unpardonable due to their wickedness of forsaking faith in the Lord Jesus Christ after knowing the truth of His gospel. I would agree highly with this sober comment from the Puritan John Owen:

"...the sin of those who forsake Christ and the gospel, after their conviction of its truth and profession of it, is on many accounts far greater than that of those who crucified him in the days of his flesh. And there are sundry reasons whereon God will exercise more severity towards this latter sort of sinners than towards the former" (John Owen, "The Nature and Causes of Apostasy from the Gospel", in The Works of John Owen [Banner of Truth; Carlisle, PA, 1965], 7:50)

May God have mercy on "Open Minded Christian"'s soul before it is too late.

But beyond that, there was a particular episode that happened recently on YouTube that put on full display his dishonesty and cowardice. 

Recently, I was on fellow apologist Chris Claus' livestream on the subject of whether or not Muhammad was a prophet. From minutes 42:25 to around 43:32, Open Minded Christian showed up in the live chat on YouTube while Chris' stream was live. Chris (and I) invited him to come on the stream and have a debate. He declined, even though many other people in the chat were asking him to join the stream and have a discussion, with Chris in particular, since they have had interaction with each other in the past prior to this occasion. "Open Minded Christian" declined, and ran away when he had his opportunity. Why did he do this? One simple reason: he knew that it would expose him for being the absolute fraud and deceiver that he is. 

Did Gregory of Nyssa Teach Sola Scriptura? [Part 1]

 

We will start this article series, as per usual, by examining the material from Gregory of Nyssa's writings appealed to by Roman Catholic apologists to suggest that he held to the RC viewpoint concerning Scripture and Tradition.

Gregory of Nyssa

Against Eunomius 4.6

"And let no one interrupt me, by saying that what we confess should also be confirmed by constructive reasoning: for it is enough for proof of our statement, that the tradition has come down to us from our fathers, handed on, like some inheritance, by succession from the apostles and the saints who came after them." (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/290104.htm)

By the underlining provided above, it is obvious what the Romanist argument is, namely that Gregory of Nyssa believed understood "tradition" (paradosis) in the Roman Catholic sense. There are a two problems with this.

First, we need to see the full context of what Gregory is saying here. Here is a wider portion of the paragraph:

"Let our author, then, show this to begin with, that it is in vain that the Church has believed that the Only-begotten Son truly exists, not adopted by a Father falsely so called, but existing according to nature, by generation from Him Who is, not alienated from the essence of Him that begot Him. But so long as his primary proposition remains unproved, it is idle to dwell on those which are secondary. And let no one interrupt me, by saying that what we confess should also be confirmed by constructive reasoning: for it is enough for proof of our statement, that the tradition has come down to us from our fathers, handed on, like some inheritance, by succession from the apostles and the saints who came after them. They, on the other hand, who change their doctrines to this novelty, would need the support of arguments in abundance, if they were about to bring over to their views, not men light as dust, and unstable, but men of weight and steadiness: but so long as their statement is advanced without being established, and without being proved, who is so foolish and so brutish as to account the teaching of the evangelists and apostles, and of those who have successively shone like lights in the churches, of less force than this undemonstrated nonsense?" (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/290104.htm)

Two things will evidence that Gregory of Nyssa's understanding of paradosis is a bit different than that of Roman Catholicism.

[1] - In the original context, Gregory of Nyssa is talking about the eternal generation of the Son. He says that it is enough that paradosis confirms it. Now who would be foolish enough to suppose that the eternal generation of the Son isn't found in Scripture? This shows he is not necessarily talking about extrabiblical dogma as Rome thinks.

[2] - In book 2 of Against Eunomius, Gregory says the following:

"The Christian Faith, which in accordance with the command of our Lord has been preached to all nations by His disciples, is neither of men, nor by men, but by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, Who being the Word, the Life, the Light, the Truth, and God, and Wisdom, and all else that He is by nature, for this cause above all was made in the likeness of man, and shared our nature, becoming like us in all things, yet without sin. He was like us in all things, in that He took upon Him manhood in its entirety with soul and body, so that our salvation was accomplished by means of both:— He, I say, appeared on earth and conversed with men Baruch 3:37, that men might no longer have opinions according to their own notions about the Self-existent, formulating into a doctrine the hints that come to them from vague conjectures, but that we might be convinced that God has truly been manifested in the flesh, and believe that to be the only true mystery of godliness 1 Timothy 3:16, which was delivered to us by the very Word and God, Who by Himself spoke to His Apostles, and that we might receive the teaching concerning the transcendent nature of the Deity which is given to us, as it were, through a glass darkly 1 Corinthians 13:12  from the older Scriptures, — from the Law, and the Prophets, and the Sapiential Books, as an evidence of the truth fully revealed to us, reverently accepting the meaning of the things which have been spoken, so as to accord in the faith set forth by the Lord of the whole Scriptures , which faith we guard as we received it, word for word, in purity, without falsification, judging even a slight divergence from the words delivered to us an extreme blasphemy and impiety. " (Against Eunomius 2.1; link)

Notice that Gregory views Scripture as being the "faith" which is "handed down" (paradosis). He also says that to depart from Scripture is "extreme blasphemy and impiety."

On "Not Three Gods."

"we must keep for ever, firm and unmoved, the tradition which we received by succession from the fathers," (https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf205.viii.v.html)

Yet again, pay close attention to what Gregory says later on:

"We, on the other hand, following the suggestions of Scripture, have learnt that that nature is unnameable and unspeakable, and we say that every term either invented by the custom of men, or handed down to us by the Scriptures, is indeed explanatory of our conceptions of the Divine Nature, but does not include the signification of that nature itself...."

This confirms what I said above regarding Gregory's understanding of the concept of tradition/"handed down".

On the Soul and Resurrection

"As for ourselves, we take our stand upon the tenets of the Church," (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2915.htm)

In the same treatise, Gregory says this:

"we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings." (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2915.htm)

Presumably, such universal language as "every tenet" would include "the tenets of the church" (from the other quote above). 

Here is more of what Gregory said about Scripture in On the Soul and the Resurrection:

"And to those who are expert only in the technical methods of proof a mere demonstration suffices to convince; but as for ourselves, we were agreed that there is something more trustworthy than any of these artificial conclusions, namely, that which the teachings of Holy Scripture point to: and so I deem that it is necessary to inquire, in addition to what has been said, whether this inspired teaching harmonizes with it all....But it somehow seems to me now, I said, that the doctrine of the Resurrection necessarily comes on for our discussion; a doctrine which I think is even at first sight true as well as credible , as it is told us in Scripture..." (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2915.htm)

Pope Felix's Excommunication of Acacius: A Proof for Rome's Universal Jurisdiction?

 

Roman Catholic Erick Ybarra is well known for his work defending the papacy in church history. He has many debates on the subject. In 2019, on the Reason and Theology YouTube channel, Erick Ybarra was in a Google video meeting with the host, Michael Lofton. This was in the same video where he had the big/famous discussion with Orthodox apologist Jay Dyer. Earlier in the livestream though, Mr. Ybarra commented that Pope Felix's excommunication of Acacius was a clear example in church history of the authority of the bishop of Rome. In this article, I will demonstrate otherwise. 

Background: This is takes place in the 5th century AD. This is during the reign of Emperor Zeno, a key figure in this historical situation. Zeno issued a document known as the Henoticon, which tried to reconcile the Monophysites and the orthodox in the church. Acacius, the current patriarch of Constantinople, entered into communion with Peter Mongus, the monophysite bishop of Alexandria (some sources he later put Mongus' name in the diptychs). Rome, on the other hand opposed the Henoticon, especially since John Talaia had appealed to Rome on the issues as well. Eventually, Pope Felix III excommunicated Acacius, who responded by removing Felix's name from the diptychs. All of this led to what is known as the Acacian schism between East and West, which lasted for thirty-five years. Even after Acacius had died, the East still continued to resist against Rome. In order for communion between the two churches to be restored, Rome wanted the East to agree with them in condemning Acacius, specifically by removing his name from their diptychs. The East's continual resistance to Rome is especially evident in the actions of Euphemius, the successor of Flavitas (who was the immediate successor of Acacius). Euphemius held a synod at Constantinople, confirming the decrees of Chalcedon. He also got rid of Felix's name in the diptychs. Eventually, the Acacian schism ended by political interference, along with getting rid of several names from the diptychs. 

RC apologists' basic claim from this situation is that it proves the universal jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome. More specifically, that Rome's universal jurisdiction is from antiquity. However, we see the exact opposite when we look at the amount of opposition made by the East against Rome after Acacius had been deposed by Felix. 

The historian Thomas Greenwood, said the following:

"But up to this point of time the bishops of Rome had not ventured upon any such startling- exercise and of the arbitrary jurisdiction claimed under that authority as that assumed by Pope Felix III.  in the case before us. Though his predecessors had frequently secluded refractor bishops of other dioceses from their own communion and that of the churches properly subject to their own domestic jurisdiction ; yet up to this point of time we do not know of any instance in which, by their own mere authority independent of episcopal or canonical assent, they had ventured to cast out the meanest individual from the bosom of the Church catholic, much less to degrade a brother patriarch from all spiritual rank and function without so much as a locus poenitentiee.'* In all the more important acts done by them in the exercise of their presumed visitatorial powers, we have been accustomed to see the provincial and diocesan synods established by the " holiest of councils" treated with some degree of respect. No bishop of Rome had hitherto ventured to substitute his own despotic fiat, attested only by the signatures of a packed committee of his Italian dependents, for those deliberative and responsible bodies to which the public law of the Church had consigned the trial of spiritual offenders." (Thomas Greenwood, Cathedra Petri: A Political History of the Great Latin Patriarchate - Books III, IV, & V, pgs. 33-34, source)

However, I think the most interesting thing which disproves the Roman Catholic argument is a letter written by Felix's successor, Gelasius I (talking about the Acacian schism):

"But as for Euphemius, who says that Acacius could not have been condemned by one person, I am surprised if he does not realise his own ignorance himself. Yes, does he not realise that Acacius was condemned according to the formula of the synod of Chalcedon? Does he not know, or is he pretending not to know? By that formula particularly it is agreed that the instigators of Acacius' error were condemned by a majority vote of bishops just as a clear consideration of events shows to have been done and is being done in the case of every single heresy from the beginning of the Christian religion, and that my predecessor was appointed executor of the old ordinance, not the instigator of a new regulation. It is permissible not only for an apostolic leader but for every pontiff to separate from catholic communion whomsoever they like and whatever place they like, according to the rule of the very heresy that has previously been condemned. Indeed, Acacius was not the inventor of a new or personal error, such that new decrees should be uttered against him, but got himself implicated in another's crime by communicating with him." (Pope Gelasius, Letter 10, from B. Neil, P. Allen, The Letters of Gelasius I (492-496) [Brepols 2014])

St. Augustine on Scripture and Tradition [Part 2]

 

We are continuing our series on Saint Augustine's doctrine concerning the relationship between Scripture and tradition. In this article, I want to provide some material from his writings which seem to evidence his belief in sola scriptura or at least something quite close to it.

Letter 137 to Volusianus

"Consider, moreover, the style in which Sacred Scripture is composed,—how accessible it is to all men, though its deeper mysteries are penetrable to very few. The plain truths which it contains it declares in the artless language of familiar friendship to the hearts both of the unlearned and of the learned; but even the truths which it veils in symbols it does not set forth in stiff and stately sentences, which a mind somewhat sluggish and uneducated might shrink from approaching, as a poor man shrinks from the presence of the rich; but, by the condescension of its style, it invites all not only to be fed with the truth which is plain, but also to be exercised by the truth which is concealed, having both in its simple and in its obscure portions the same truth. Lest what is easily understood should beget satiety in the reader, the same truth being in another place more obscurely expressed becomes again desired, and, being desired, is somehow invested with a new attractiveness, and thus is received with pleasure into the heart. By these means wayward minds are corrected, weak minds are nourished, and strong minds are filled with pleasure, in such a way as is profitable to all. This doctrine has no enemy but the man who, being in error, is ignorant of its incomparable usefulness, or, being spiritually diseased, is averse to its healing power." (https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf101/npnf101.vii.1.CXXXVII.html)

Here Augustine teaches plainly (no pun intended) the perspicuity of Scripture, as well as the sufficiency of Scripture. 

On Christian Doctrine - Book 2, Chapter 42

"And while every man may find there all that he has learnt of useful elsewhere, he will find there in much greater abundance things that are to be found nowhere else, but can be learnt only in the wonderful sublimity and wonderful simplicity of the Scriptures." (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/12022.htm)

A way that RC apologists may try and answer this quotation is by quoting the next book (book 3), considering that the above quote is at the every end of book 2 (i.e. in ch. 42).

Augustine, speaking about what to do when confronted with unclear things in Scripture, says the following:

"Accordingly, if, when attention is given to the passage, it shall appear to be uncertain in what way it ought to be punctuated or pronounced, let the reader consult the rule of faith which he has gathered from the plainer passages of Scripture, and from the authority of the Church, and of which I treated at sufficient length when I was speaking in the first book about things." (On Christian Doctrine, Book 3, Chapter 2)

Yet a little later on, we read the following:

"It is therefore very rare and very difficult to find any ambiguity in the case of proper words, as far at least as Holy Scripture is concerned, which neither the context, showing the design of the writer, nor a comparison of translations, nor a reference to the original tongue, will suffice to explain." (On Christian Doctrine, Book 3, Chapter 4)

Augustine's Sermon to Catechumens

"Receive, my children, the Rule of Faith, which is called the Symbol (or Creed )....These words which you have heard are in the Divine Scriptures scattered up and down" (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1307.htm)

"The creed itself, according to Cyril of Jerusalem, Augustine and Cassian, was a compendium of Scripture." (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, pg. 46)

On the Good of Widowhood, 2

"Whereas, therefore, in every question, which relates to life and conduct, not only teaching, but exhortation also is necessary; in order that by teaching we may know what is to be done, and by exhortation may be incited not to think it irksome to do what we already know is to be done; what more can I teach you, than what we read in the Apostle? For holy Scripture sets a rule to our teaching, that we dare not be wise more than it behooves to be wise; but be wise, as himself says, unto soberness, according as unto each God has allotted the measure of faith. Be it not therefore for me to teach you any other thing, save to expound to you the words of the Teacher, and to treat of them as the Lord shall have given to me." (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1311.htm)

Epistle 93

"Wherefore, my brother, refrain from gathering together against divine testimonies so many, so perspicuous, and so unchallenged, the calumnies which may be found in the writings of bishops either of our communion, as Hilary, or of the undivided Church itself in the age preceding the schism of Donatus, as Cyprian or Agrippinus; because, in the first place, this class of writings must be, so far as authority is concerned, distinguished from the canon of Scripture. For they are not read by us as if a testimony brought forward from them was such that it would be unlawful to hold any different opinion, for it may be that the opinions which they held were different from those to which truth demands our assent. For we are among those who do not reject what has been taught us even by an apostle: If in anything ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you; nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, Philippians 3:15-16 — in that way, namely, which Christ is; of which way the Psalmist thus speaks: God be merciful unto us, and bless us, and cause His face to shine upon us: that Your way may be known upon earth, Your saving health among all nations." (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102093.htm)

"[fn. 66] In a letter to the Rogatist bishop Vincent, Augustine reaffirms that the canonical Scriptures are above the authority of all other authors, even the Catholic ones (Ep. 93.10.35)." (Jonathan J. Armstrong, "From the κανὼν τῆς ἀληθείας to the κανὼν τῶν γραφῶν: The Rule of Faith and the New Testament Canon", in Ronnie J. Rombs & Alexander Hwang, Tradition and the Rule of Faith in the Early Church, pg. 46)

Letter 148

"For the reasonings of any men whatsoever, even though they be Catholics, and of high reputation, are not to be treated by us in the same way as the canonical Scriptures are treated. We are at liberty, without doing any violence to the respect which these men deserve, to condemn and reject anything in their writings, if perchance we shall find that they have entertained opinions differing from that which others or we ourselves have, by the divine help, discovered to be the truth. I deal thus with the writings of others, and I wish my intelligent readers to deal thus with mine." (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102148.htm)

"Augustine frequently refers to the “canonical authority” (canonica auctoritas) of the Scriptures, a phrase he repeats so often as to be an Augustinian idiom. Augustine ascribes “paramount authority” (eminentissimae auctoritatis) to the canonical Scriptures and draws a sharp distinction between the books that have been declared canonical by the Catholic Church and those penned by any other author." (Jonathan J. Armstrong, "From the κανὼν τῆς ἀληθείας to the κανὼν τῶν γραφῶν: The Rule of Faith and the New Testament Canon", in Ronnie J. Rombs & Alexander Hwang, Tradition and the Rule of Faith in the Early Church, pg. 46)

Unfinished Answer to Julian of Eclanum

"On this account he cries out, Wretched man that I am, who will set me free from the body of this death? (Rom 7:24). And you close your eyes to the perfectly clear truth and you explain his groan, not as it is evident to all, but as it pleases you, when you say that Who will set me free from the body of this death? (Rom 7:24) means: “Who will set me free from the guilt of my own sins which I committed?” He said, I do the evil that I do not will (Rom 7:19), and you say: “the sins which I committed.” (The Works of Saint Augustine: Answer to the Pelagians III, trans. Roland J. Teske, pg. 95)

Once again, we see that Augustine held to the perspicuity of the Scriptures, in contrast to the Roman Catholic idea that Scripture is so "unclear" that one needs Rome's magisterium in order to interpret it. 

 

The Early Church Fathers on the Holy Spirit

 

It is a common claim among Islamic apologists that the Trinity was "invented" at the Council of Nicaea. Yet, any serious study of the writings of the ante-Nicene fathers shows this claim to be completely laughable and more frankly, dishonest (especially for those who have read some of the patristic writings and yet still propogate this lie). I have often noticed that in Islamic-Christian debates, the deity of Christ is more often discussed than the deity of the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Blessed Trinity. 

Islamic apologist Adnan Rashid, in a debate with Dr. James R. White on the Trinity, made the claim that the early church fathers taught binitarianism (only the Father and Son are God, to the exclusion of the Holy Spirit) "at best". 

Similarly, this Islamic website says the following:

"The apostolic faith concerning the Spirit was announced by the second ecumenical council at Constantinople (381) [18]" (http://www.manyprophetsonemessage.com/2017/08/31/did-the-early-church-fathers-believe-in-the-trinity/)

I started doing some research on the early fathers of the church and what they said about the Holy Spirit and His deity. When we take a look at all of the available evidence, we get a very different picture than what is given to us by Muslim apologists.

"we may have fellowship with the champion and noble martyr of Christ, who trod under foot the devil, and perfected the course which, out of love to Christ, he had desired, in Christ Jesus our Lord; by whom, and with whom, be glory and power to the Father, with the Holy Spirit, for evermore! Amen." (The Martyrdom of Ignatius, Chapter 7)

"We wish you, brethren, all happiness, while you walk according to the doctrine of the Gospel of Jesus Christ; with whom be glory to God the Father and the Holy Spirit, for the salvation of His holy elect, after whose example the blessed Polycarp suffered, following in whose steps may we too be found in the kingdom of Jesus Christ!” (The Martyrdom of Polycarp, Chapter 22)

"Hence are we called atheists. And we confess that we are atheists, so far as gods of this sort are concerned, but not with respect to the most true God, the Father of righteousness and temperance and the other virtues, who is free from all impurity. But both Him, and the Son (who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of the other good angels who follow and are made like to Him), AND THE PROPHETIC SPIRIT, we worship and adore, knowing them in reason and truth, and declaring without grudging to every one who wishes to learn, as we have been taught." (Justin Martyr, First Apology, Chapter 6)

“… From all which we learn that the person of the Holy Spirit was of such authority and dignity, that saving baptism was not complete except by the authority of the most excellent Trinity of them all, i.e., by the naming of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and by joining to the unbegotten God the Father, and to His only-begotten Son, the name also of the Holy Spirit. Who, then, is not amazed at the exceeding majesty of the Holy Spirit, when he hears that he who speaks a word against the Son of man may hope for forgiveness; but that he who is guilty of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit has not forgiveness, either in the present world or in that which is to come!… But up to the present time we have been able to find no statement in holy Scripture in which the Holy Spirit could be said to be made or created, not even in the way in which we have shown above that the divine wisdom is spoken of by Solomon, or in which those expressions which we have discussed are to be understood of the life, or the word, or the other appellations of the Son of God. The Spirit of God, therefore, which was borne upon the waters, as is written in the beginning of the creation of the world, is, I am of opinion, no other than the Holy Spirit, so far as I can understand; as indeed we have shown in our exposition of the passages themselves, not according to the historical, but according to the spiritual method of interpretation… ” (Origen, De Principiis, Book 1, Chapter 3)

"In accordance with all these things, the: form, moreover, and rule being received from the elders who have lived before us, we also, with a voice in accordance with them, will both acquit ourselves of thanks to you, and of the letter which we are now writing. And to God the Father, and His Son our Lord Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit, be glory and dominion for ever and ever" (Dionysius the Great, Miscellaneous Writings, "Conclusion of the Entire Treatise")

“The Holy Spirit Himself also, which operates in the prophets, we assert to be an effluence of God, flowing from Him, and returning back again like a beam of the sun. Who, then, would not be astonished to hear men who speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their power in union and their distinction in order, called atheists?” (Athenagoras, A Plea for the Christians, Chapter 10, found in ANF 2:133)

"In the course of time, then, the Father forsooth was born, and the Father suffered, God Himself, the Lord Almighty, whom in their preaching they declare to be Jesus Christ. We, however, as we indeed always have done (and more especially since we have been better instructed by the Paraclete, who leads men indeed into all truth), believe that there is one only God, but under the following dispensation, or οἰκονομία , as it is called, that this one only God has also a Son, His Word, who proceeded from Himself, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made. Him we believe to have been sent by the Father into the Virgin, and to have been born of her—being both Man and God, the Son of Man and the Son of God, and to have been called by the name of Jesus Christ; we believe Him to have suffered, died, and been buried, according to the Scriptures, and, after He had been raised again by the Father and taken back to heaven, to be sitting at the right hand of the Father, and that He will come to judge the quick and the dead; who sent also from heaven from the Father, according to His own promise, the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost. That this rule of faith has come down to us from the beginning of the gospel, even before any of the older heretics, much more before Praxeas, a pretender of yesterday, will be apparent both from the lateness of date which marks all heresies, and also from the absolutely novel character of our new-fangled Praxeas. In this principle also we must henceforth find a presumption of equal force against all heresies whatsoever—that whatever is first is true, whereas that is spurious which is later in date. But keeping this prescriptive rule inviolate, still some opportunity must be given for reviewing (the statements of heretics), with a view to the instruction and protection of divers persons; were it only that it may not seem that each perversion of the truth is condemned without examination, and simply prejudged; especially in the case of this heresy, which supposes itself to possess the pure truth, in thinking that one cannot believe in One Only God in any other way than by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the very selfsame Person. As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their the three Persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. How they are susceptible of number without division, will be shown as our treatise proceeds." (Tertullian, Against Praxeas, Chapter 2)

"Therefore, when the holy prophets, and all, as I have said, who righteously and justly walked in the law of the Lord, together with the entire people, celebrated a typical and shadowy Passover, the Creator and Lord of every visible and invisible creature, the only-begotten Son, and the Word co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit, and of the same substance with them, according to His divine nature, our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, being in the end of the world born according to the flesh of our holy and glorious lady, Mother of God, and Ever-Virgin, and, of a truth, of Mary the Mother of God; and being seen upon earth, and having true and real converse as man with men, who were of the same substance with Him, according to His human nature, Himself also, with the people, in the years before His public ministry and during His public ministry, did celebrate the legal and shadowy Passover, eating the typical lamb. For I came not to destroy the law, or the prophets, but to fulfil them, the Saviour Himself said in the Gospel." (Pseudo-Peter of Alexandria, Fragments, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0621.htm)

"And there is One Holy Spirit, having His subsistence from God, and being made manifest by the Son, to wit to men: Image of the Son, Perfect Image of the Perfect; Life, the Cause of the living; Holy Fount; Sanctity, the Supplier, or Leader, of Sanctification; in whom is manifested God the Father, who is above all and in all, and God the Son, who is through all. There is a perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty, neither divided nor estranged. Wherefore there is nothing either created or in servitude in the Trinity; nor anything superinduced, as if at some former period it was non-existent, and at some later period it was introduced. And thus neither was the Son ever wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son; but without variation and without change, the same Trinity abides ever." (Gregory Thaumaturgus, A Declaration of Faith)

From the above quotes, it is quite clear as to what the early fathers taught about the Holy Spirit, namely that He is God along with the Father and the Son. However, I also wanted to provide some material from church historians concerning this issue:

"In spite of incoherencies, however, the lineaments of a Trinitarian doctrine are clearly discernible in the Apologists. The Spirit was for them the Spirit of God; like the Word, He shared the divine nature, being (in Athenagoras's words) an 'effiuence' from the Deity. (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, pg. 103)

"The Apostolic Fathers do not call the Holy Spirit God, but most of them indicate adequately their belief in His distinct personality and divinity. For they coordinate Him with the Father and the Son in an oath and in the baptismal formula, give Him equal glory with the Father and the Son, and ascribe to Him the strictly divine function of inspiration. It is incorrect, then, to say that 'by the end of the period of the Apostolic Fathers there was no belief in a pre-existent Trinity.'....On several occasions Justin coordinates the three persons, sometimes citing formulas derived from baptism and the eucharist, sometimes echoing official catechetical teaching. He worshipped the Father as supreme in the universe; he worshipped the Logos or Son as divine but in the second place; he worshipped the Holy Spirit in the third place." (Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity, pgs. 44, 47, source)