- Mar 18, 2014
- 38,116
- 34,054
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Hmm no. John 21:25 answers what you asked: You have not demonstrated the word of mouth differs from what was written. Unless of course you have examples of critical apostolic teachings which were not written down. perfectly because it is telling you that not everything written so logically
It tells you not everything is written, and not every could fit in a book. So there are teachings that were through word of mouth that never entered scripture.
Let's revisit:
John 21: NASB
24This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.
25And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.
The above just after this from chapter 20:
John 20: NASB
30Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.
So John is saying it's 'one stop shopping' with his gospel account. That what he wrote one could come to the belief in Jesus as the Christ the Son of God and that we have life in His name.
Now I take the above to mean this is critical doctrines, accounts and beliefs. Yet in the next chapter and what you quote has:
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.
First begs the question...Are these other things which Jesus did any different from what John or any of the other Gospel writers or epistle authors taught? That's the question.
Your response has been the verse is a proof text for a separate apostolic oral tradition. If so then which traditions are packed into "other things Jesus did?"
The tonsure? Purgatory? Prayers to departed saints? Marian veneration?
Thus again, you try to pack in your later doctrinal developments from a position of silence.
The only church which has an officially closed canon is your church thanks to Trent.Another example (or answer) is the canon. You believe that there is a closed canon and the Bible you hold is it. You believe if we add/delete any books in the Bible, we would be committing a sin. You believe that the last revelation from God ceased from the last apostle. Am i correct in all of this?
When YHWH said "thus saith the Lord" to Isaiah it is true YHWH said it first, Isaiah heard it and then wrote it down. So I'm not seeing the logic of your position here. Yes things happen and are said first and then written down. I already attested to that by quoting Irenaeus in AH 3.1.1Exactly, regardless of how or when Mark and Luke wrote the gospels the fact is they did not come from scripture.
And written in the very time spans of the apostles and eyewitnesses.This info was verbally passed down.
Do you think the christian prisoners documented by Pliny the Younger gained their beliefs because of what they read, or what it all verbally taken first?
It is written: "So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Romans 10:17)
Thus the preacher presents the word of God and the listener hears these words and responds. Yet 'hearing by the word of God' is what the preacher is using.
And where to we find the word of God?
Too many verses to post, so please click on the below links:
Word of God
Word of the Lord
Thus saith the Lord
It is written
Yet the Trinity was argued by the orthodox bishops using Holy Scriptures. I'm sure you are familiar with the works of Athanasius. He argued the Trinity and Deity of Christ from Holy Scriptures. And his canon was with the exception of one book (Esther) is what most Protestants have in their canon.The Trinity itself is a christian belief that isn't worded in scripture, in fact to this day, the fact that there are verses that are like puzzles for this info has caused some to think that the scriptures deny this teaching, but we see in the history of the 1st Christians that they believed this even with out the scriptures being present at the time.
Where did Irenaeus say Scripture has to be under the guidance of the Church?What you don't understand is that while scripture is authority it has to be under the guidance of the Church (as Irenaeus put it). Our faith can't go by scripture alone otherwise some guy can make claims and even religions out of what he interprets just as history shows.
History shows heretics used tradition and new revelation claims as well (e.g. Mormons and Muslims). Irenaeus went into detail arguing the traditions of the heretics were not apostolic even though they claimed it to be true. Therefore, he pointed out where the apostolic tradition, the rule of faith was scriptural and refuted the false doctrine of the demiurge. Again, I point out the tradition he speaks of was the rule of faith and 100% "Biblical."Our faith can't go by scripture alone otherwise some guy can make claims and even religions out of what he interprets just as history shows.
Yet, your point of 'scripture alone' might be from a faulty definition. Scripture alone, Sola Scriptura, in a nutshell is we test all truth claims against Holy Scriptures because we know they are wholly inspired by the Holy Spirit and are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:15-17). And that the Apostle exhorted Timothy the following:
2 Timothy 4: NASB
1I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: 2preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. 3For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, 4and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths. 5But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.
And you have failed to demonstrate what was handed down differs from what we have written. I showed in AH 1.10.1 how Irenaeus gives a creed, the rule of faith which is 100% compatible with what is written.The way scripture is interpreted has to be aligned to what the apostles passed down to the church fathers.
So that's an interpretation which Irenaeus later tests with Scriptures.
As I mentioned, the early church had a pretty good idea what was first century and from the apostles and what were spurious which were mainly 2nd century works.The Bible is an example of that, because with all the books that were floating around it was Matt-Rev that was passed down by the apostles and because of that the recognization of what is truly God's word for the NT has been taught by the church for generations.
First you have not established what tradition "Irenaeus represents." I on the other hand gave evidence he confirmed the rule of faith is compatible, actually comes from the written Scriptures.Then who is aligned to the true apostolic tradition, it isn't you protestants because your main rule of faith is Sola Scriptura and there are about 3k+ protestant denominations, each and every one being a reformation of a previous denomination (that includes yours). The RC and the EO are more close to the apostolic tradition that Irenaeus represents. I don't understand how you just blindly put John21:25 as an argument from silence when it is completely clear in saying that not everything is in scripture. What and where is the rest that isn't found in scripture, if you think the RC and EO -two of the oldest christians today isn't following it?
Secondly, if one wants to make an ancient claim, there is nothing more ancient in Christianity than the actual teachings of Jesus Christ and His Apostles. We find that in both the OT and NT.
The heart of Sola Scriptura is test everything; hold fast what is good.; (1 Thessalonians 5:21)
Meaning Scriptures are the only infallible authority to test truth claims. Which what I see on these chat boards are confusing arguments and assertions on Sola Scriptura from both Roman Catholics and even some Protestants, Evangelicals and others. As Reformed theologian Michael Kruger opines on here:
Of course, like many core Christian convictions, the doctrine of sola Scriptura has often been misunderstood and misapplied. Unfortunately, some have used sola Scriptura as a justification for a “me, God, and the Bible” type of individualism, where the church bears no real authority and the history of the church is not considered when interpreting and applying Scripture. Thus, many churches today are almost ahistorical—cut off entirely from the rich traditions, creeds, and confessions of the church. They misunderstand sola Scriptura to mean that the Bible is the only authority rather than understanding it to mean that the Bible is the only infallible authority. Ironically, such an individualistic approach actually undercuts the very doctrine of sola Scriptura it is intended to protect. By emphasizing the autonomy of the individual believer, one is left with only private, subjective conclusions about what Scripture means. It is not so much the authority of Scripture that is prized as the authority of the individual.
The Reformers would not have recognized such a distortion as their doctrine of sola Scriptura. On the contrary, they were quite keen to rely on the church fathers, church councils, and the creeds and confessions of the church. Such historical rootedness was viewed not only as a means for maintaining orthodoxy but also as a means for maintaining humility. Contrary to popular perceptions, the Reformers did not view themselves as coming up with something new. Rather, they understood themselves to be recovering something very old—something that the church had originally believed but later twisted and distorted. The Reformers were not innovators but were excavators. (Understanding Sola Scriptura)
The Reformers would not have recognized such a distortion as their doctrine of sola Scriptura. On the contrary, they were quite keen to rely on the church fathers, church councils, and the creeds and confessions of the church. Such historical rootedness was viewed not only as a means for maintaining orthodoxy but also as a means for maintaining humility. Contrary to popular perceptions, the Reformers did not view themselves as coming up with something new. Rather, they understood themselves to be recovering something very old—something that the church had originally believed but later twisted and distorted. The Reformers were not innovators but were excavators. (Understanding Sola Scriptura)
As I pointed out---both. Meaning the words of Christ were spoken, the teachings of the Apostles were verbal, but also being written down at the same time.But was it all scripture originally? Wasn't this info all passed down with out writings?
What you have not been able to provide is evidence that what was written differed from what was given verbally. And if you believe there are other things which were taught and were part of the apostolic tradition but not written down, the burden of proof is on you to provide a list of what those traditions are. Irenaeus gives no help to your cause as the tradition he mentions is a creed, the rule of faith which is entirely from Holy Scriptures.
Last edited:
Upvote
0