Well, most scholars would be wrong, the scriptures and the historical evidence show otherwise.
You cannot prove one quote in the New Testament came from the LXX.
Second, the Protestant view on the Fathers is that they are only to regarded when they follow the Scriptures...Yours is when they follow the Church. The Church does not follow Scripture? One could also say that Protestants regard others only if they personally agree with their interpretation of the Scripture.
Your Church is a consensus of men over the centuries.
You add tradition to scripture and thus nullify it (Mk.7-7-13).
For the Protestant his final authority is the word of God and that is where the final appeal is to.
We don't make our appeals to tradition or what any man has said unless it is supported by the scriptures.
Our final authority is the 66 Books, yours is of consensus of men The 66 books you follow are put together by a consensus of men!
No, it was put composed by men under the control of the Holy Spirit.
And the evidence of the correctness of the Books was attested to by Him.
Chrysostom said regarding scripture, that every word was pure, directly from the Prophets and Apostles, and when one read the scriptures, it was as if they were there speaking directly to them Yeah, but who decides what is scripture?
God does.(2Tim.3:16, Heb.4:12)
God reveals what is true to the believer through the Holy Spirit (Gen.40:8) and by comparing scripture with scripture (2Pe.1:20)
He placed all tradition as being subject to the scriptures ...which were decided by a consensus of men.
No, the scriptures were from God and recognized by men.
You flatly rejected what he said on the subject First, we don't have any originals (not even original copies of the originals!), so we can't state that reading the scriptures is like the Apostles and prophets speaking to us directly.
What we have is a perfect preservation of what God wanted us to have (Ps.12:6-7)
Chrysostom did that on his own assumption, and so do others who agree with him. It's their choice, their personal belief based on nothing but hope, not on fact.
Well, nevertheless, Luther's view and the Protestant view is a return to that view held by a revered Greek Church Father, not a novel 16th idea.
Second, the books of the Bible are anonymous. Ignatius and Papias are the first people (2nd century) who are identifying certain writings with "Matthew."
So now you are denying the authorship anbd validly of the book of Matthew?
There is an awful lot of assuming in that statement of John Chrysostom, none of which is historically factual.
No, Chrysostom had it right and it is you who are assuming that God can't preserve what He gave to men to have, His perfect words.
What historical evidence do you have about any of the scriptures? There is not a single original to be found. It's accepted on faith.
You cannot prove one quote in the New Testament came from the LXX
As much as you can prove that the five books of Moses came from Moses.
For the Protestant his final authority is the word of God and that is where the final appeal is to
No, it's what he considers to be the word of God. Again, it defaults to a man. In which case I would rather go with a consensus. The Protestants claim that what they believe is equal to the word of God. What proof is there of that?
No, it was put composed by men under the control of the Holy Spirit
And you can't prove it. First, not a single father agreed fully on what constitutes Christian canon and, second, it took a consensus to finalize it (and even then it wasn't fully accepted by all, Revelation of John being one case in point!). If the HS had anything to do with, it was in the Church as a whole and not in any individual father.
And the evidence of the correctness of the Books was attested to by Him
What "evidence" (proof)?
What we have is a perfect preservation of what God wanted to have
"Proving" scriptures with scriptures — on faith alone. Preconception is not a proof.
So now you are denying the authorship and validly of the book of Matthew?
I am merely stating the fact that it is unsigned (anonymous) and that the earliest 'proof' of that authorship comes from two men (Ignatius and papias) who were not inspired to the best of my knowledge, in the second century AD, anywhere from 55 to 65 yrears after the fact, by simply saying that it is!
You are placing your trust in two men who offer no proof, factual or spiritual, whatsoever that the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew.
No, Chrysostom had it right and it is you who are assuming that God can't preserve what He gave to men to have, His perfect words
Oh, God certainly can, but men can't.