“”Kolokotronis”, said otherwise. So, which of you is presenting the correct EO position?
I doubt it. I know Kolokotronis better than you and he would not say something like that. What exactly did Kolo say? And if he did say what you claim, I am pinging him for the benefit of his own doubt, so that he may elaborate.”
Ah, Kosta mou, here’s what I said, at 10146:
“HD, where did you get that idea? The Church proclaims the inspiration of the Fathers throughout the liturgical year in Apolytikia and Kontakia. For example, this Kontakion from the feast of +Cyril of Jerusalem:
“With your lips, O wise Cyril, And through divine inspiration You enlightened your people To the worship of the one Trinity, Undivided in essence, yet divided in Hypostases. Wherefore rejoicing, we celebrate your all-holy memory, Offering you as our intercessor before God.”
I also said this, at 10198:
“Are you putting their writings on par with the Scriptures?”
Am I? Its not my place to put the writings of the Fathers anywhere save before my eyes. I will say that I think the Fathers are often far more clear than the scriptures, but that’s a personal opinion. For example, look at this, Homily XX on Ephesians Of +John Chrysostomos:....”
And this at 10216:
“Well I don’t know if there are gradations of divine inspiration. I doubt it, but The Church determined what would be scripture and what isn’t. Scripture is divinely inspired and so is the work of the Fathers. But the writings of the Fathers are not considered scripture (they are about scripture) and aside from +John Chrysostomos’ Pascal Sermon, I don’t think any of the writings of the Fathers are read at the Divine Liturgy. I suspect that divine inspiration alone isn’t what qualifies a writing as scriptural.
All in all, I’d say divine inspiration is divine inspiration and there are no gradations of it. The Church, however, understands what is scripture and what is not and has proclaimed what is and is not scriptural.”
Personally, I think the Protestants use the word inspired differently than we do, or ascribe more “importance to it” than we do. Given the way they regard the Bible, I suppose I can understand how that can be.
Literalism is certainly one of those and unbiblical private interpretation of the scriptures is another. By claming indwelling Spirit, in a way every Chrisina is claiming some degree inspiration. But naturally, one say that a dedicated physician inspired someone to become a doctor, or that a book was inspiring, or that one is inspired by God's goodness and love. Inspired simply means "moved" (quickened). Yet we also believe that the so-called truly "inspired" were only the Apostles, and the Church as a whole (through Ecumenical Councils).