St. Basil and Tradition
A Protestant website says that St. Basil says Scripture is higher that tradition, and I assume they're taking his words out of context, but what should I think?

"What then? After all these efforts were they tired? Did they leave off? Not at all. They are charging me with innovation, and base their charge on my confession of three hypostases, and blame me for asserting one Goodness, one Power, one Godhead. In this they are not wide of the truth, for I do so assert. Their complaint is that their custom does not accept this, and that Scripture does not agree. What is my reply? I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favour of that side will be cast the vote of truth." (Basil, Letter 189, 3)

I guess the website is saying Scripture should be used instead of magisterium or a general council.
Of course I know the problems of Sols scriptura, but whatever
It depends. The Bible is tradition.

It clearly states that the written words are only testimony, and that the fullness of the teachings were taught by voice.

This is referenced many times.

Obviously, if something contradicts scripture, then it is wrong. But only if it actually contradicts it (not if our understanding is incomplete).
thou art the wisest among the wise Herr
Protestant heretics are reading into this what they desire for their "itching ears" to hear.  They are quote-mining/proof-texting/cherry-picking quotations from the Ancient Church fathers in a vain effort to support Sola Scriptura [a logical fallacy in and of itself]. 
As usual, they try and create an "either/or" false dichotomy between Scripture and Tradition. We believe Scripture is authoritative. Anyway, a quick perusal of St. Basil's most famous work on the Holy Spirit shows he was vigorously and explicitly opposed to "Sola Scripture." Here are three examples:

25. But all the apparatus of war has been got ready against us; every intellectual missile  is aimed at us; and now blasphemers' tongues  shoot and hit and hit again, yet harder than Stephen  of old was smitten by the killers of the Christ.  And do not let them succeed in concealing the fact that, while an attack on us serves for a pretext for the war, the real aim of these proceedings is higher. It is against us, they say, that they are preparing their engines and their snares; against us that they are shouting to one another, according to each one's strength or cunning, to come on. But the object of attack is faith. The one aim of the whole band of opponents and enemies of "sound doctrine"  1 Timothy 1:10  is to shake down the foundation of the faith of Christ  by levelling apostolic tradition  with the ground, and utterly destroying it. So like the debtors,— of course bona fide debtors— they clamour for written proof, and reject as worthless the unwritten tradition  of the Fathers.  But we will not slacken in our defence  of the truth. We will not cowardly abandon the cause. The Lord  has delivered to us as a necessary and saving  doctrine that the Holy Spirit is to be ranked with the Father. Our opponents think differently, and see fit to divide and rend  asunder, and relegate  Him to the nature  of a ministering spirit. Is it not then indisputable that they make their own blasphemy more authoritative than the law prescribed by the Lord?

66.  Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church   some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us "in a mystery"  by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion  have the same force.

71. In answer to the objection that the doxology in the form "with the Spirit" has no written authority, we maintain that if there is no other instance of that which is unwritten, then this must not be received. But if the greater number of our mysteries are admitted into our constitution without written authority, then, in company with the many others, let us receive this one. For I hold it apostolic to abide also by the unwritten  traditions. "I praise you," it is said, "that you remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you;" 1 Corinthians 11:2  and "Hold fast the traditions  which you have been taught whether by word, or our Epistle."  2 Thessalonians 2:15
The Scriptures are the written depository of the revelation, the living Magisterium is the interpreter of that adding the oral tradition from the apostles and disciples of Christ
The fundamental problem of Protetsantism is that it rejects authority. Only by rejecting the divinely instituted teaching authority of the Church and instead appealing to private interpretation could the early Reformers spread their novel doctrines, doctrines which had no support whatsoever from ecclesiastical history (e.g., sola Scriptura, fiduciary faith, unconditional eternal security).

Protestants love nothing better than to get others into a war of Scripture verses or even making the Church Fathers compete against one another (and sometimes themselves). By doing this they can persuade those who are not as familiar with Scripture or with the Fathers as they are to believe their (i.e. the Protestants') interpretations. The cure, aside from the obvious testimony of history, can be easily found in the decrees of the ecumenical councils, of which their authority rested upon - you guessed it - the patriarchal sees. As the ecumenical councils declared what was orthodox and what was not, and bound all Christians everywhere to accept their decisions, it's obvious that the councils held more authority than individual Church Fathers (and that the early Church understood herself as having teaching - and interpretive - authority). And here is where the Protestants' argument against Tradition is destroyed: the ecumenical councils clearly and repeatedly appealed to Apostolic Tradition, and eventually - with Nicaea II - condemned anyone who would reject Tradition. Only by rejecting the Church's bishops' authority (of which history recognizes and attests to) and the authority of their conciliar decrees can Protestants (seemingly successfully) argue against Tradition.

So how can Protestants argue that the Church Fathers, as a group (much less singularly), rejected the idea of Tradition as part of Revelation when their councils appealed to Tradition and demanded the whole Church to submit to their decisions, later demanding acceptance of Tradition, to which  the Fathers faithfully agreed to?  ???

I'm not saying that we can't show St. Basil clearly supporting and referring to Apostolic Tradition, but doing so can lead to looking at a branch instead of the trunk. Protestants want us to look at the twigs and the leaves (i.e. selective quotes from individual Fathers) to divert our attention away from the trunk (i.e. the conciliar decrees which clearly prove our case, and which are of higher authority than even the Fathers). If we ever bother to look at the trunk, then their entire house of cards comes crumbling to the ground in an instant. Knowing this, they instead focus on the Fathers and use their poisonous methods of interpretation (because heresy is poisonous) to snare us in their traps, just as they try to do when baiting people into a war of Scripture verses.
You have to read the quote in context:

St. Basil is saying that his Sabellian (modalist) opponents are wrong in appealing to their heretical traditions and not allowing him to appeal to the Church's true tradition about the Trinity.  Then he says that Scripture support's the Church's tradition and not the heretical one. 

The Protestant website seems to employing "proof texting" at its worst. 

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)