NOW READ WHAT IRENAUS ACTUALLY SAYS
He refers to the church as the custodian of truth.
Just as scripture says the church is the foundation of truth.
Read 3
1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times;
And 4
"1. Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the
417 water of life."
So not sola scriptura then.
In fact at the time...not even scriptura as the MAIN means of faith passage.
The books may have existed, they were yet to be canonised, and false ones removed.
Scritpure supplements tradition, it does not live in place of it.
And as section III says...the perpetual succession of bishops who appointed each other fromt he first.
We can trace them back.
Do you even have any?
Luther renounced his succession. When he wanted to renounce the authority of the church.
And EUREKA !
YOu have finally got what tradition means - your "specific way "is exactly what the church means by tradition. It is only protesants who misinterpret it as doctrine added to scripture. Scripture cannot be interpreted correctly without tradition.
and that is how Jesus chose the faith was passed on.
Paradosis Handing down.
I prefer Jesus's way, to the medieaval falsehood that is sola scritpura
It is not how protestants misrepresent tradition
Tradition gives the true meaning to scripture.
Which is why succession is critical.
So not sola scriptura then.
And then when you accept the authority of the church, and tradition
Listen to what scripture means.
I leave it for our readers to discover the church handed down.
A sacramental liturgical church, that believed the eucharist REALLY WAS the "flesh of jesus" valid only if performed by bishops in succesion. In short the catholic church.
It is still there. Believes the same things. For sure it grew from acorn to Oak.
I am well aware the luther quote was a letter (i think) to antwerp in (I think) 1523
My interest is in getting people to read source. Not cherry pick as all protesants do
Luther blames the devil for the fact others do not agree with him on his personal meaning of scriptura. When sola scriptura was clearly his problem. Everyone else did what he did. Invented their very own version, instead of as iraneaus said - listen to the church.
I want them to read ignatius, iraneus, justin martyr and so on.
Realise that they have been sold garbage by evangelicals and reformers.
And I read what is there in early church doctrine same as RCC doctrine.
READ IGNATIUS TO SMYRNEANS! - Justin martyr - See what the eucharist really is. Not how many reformers profane it.
NOW READ WHAT IRENAUS ACTUALLY SAYS
He refers to the church as the custodian of truth.
Just as scripture says the church is the foundation of truth.
Read 3
1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times;
And 4
"1. Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the 417 water of life."
So not sola scriptura then.
In fact at the time...not even scriptura as the MAIN means of faith passage.
The books may have existed, they were yet to be canonized, and false ones removed.
I’m not arguing Sola Scriptura is in operation at this point in history. Yes, the canon is being formed at this writing however the point is to demonstrate the books that would later become the new testament are being used in an authoritative way. Irenaeus does have the concept of a New Testament as demonstrated in book IV.
A second issue with your statement is the notion of canon. Canon from Greek κανών, ‘measuring rod’, ‘rule’. The canon is an artifact of the scriptures. The scriptures are authoritative whether they are included in a canon or not because of their divine quality not by church authority. The church recognized this divine quality and incorporated these book into the canon. The reason is scripture is said to be θεόπνευστος or theopneustos literally “God Breathed” according to 2 Tim 3:16. If a book is written that is theopneustos but is omitted from the canon because it was lost still retains its divine quality even if it is not in the canon. Alternatively, the church does not have the authority to make a book that is not theopneustos part of the canon. To put it another way, the books make the canon not the other way around. I agree that the 27 books that comprise the New Testament are the correct books and I do not believe that there are books that have not yet been found due to God’s providence.
What’s more is that the Rome’s definition of what makes up the biblical canon does not come until 1546. I realize that RC’s want to push the date of composition and recognition of the New Testament books as far out as possible, so they can claim councils of Carthage, Hippo and Rome defined the canon. The problem there is that those councils were local in nature and authority which is why Rome defines the canon during the council of Trent.
Scripture supplements tradition, it does not live in place of it.
It’s the other way around.
And as section III says...the perpetual succession of bishops who appointed each other from the first.
The text states only Sixtus was appointed. Furthermore, was it not a tradition for the bishop of Rome to be a consensus of clergy
and laity? That’s tradition adding to what has been said.
We can trace them back.
Do you even have any?
No, LCMS is more congregational polity. There are some Lutheran bodies that do have and episcopal polity and claim apostolic succession.
Luther renounced his succession. When he wanted to renounce the authority of the church.
Luther was not a Bishop. I do not know what you mean here.
And EUREKA !
You have finally got what tradition means - your "specific way "is exactly what the church means by tradition. It is only protestants who misinterpret it as doctrine added to scripture. Scripture cannot be interpreted correctly without tradition.
and that is how Jesus chose the faith was passed on.
Paradosis Handing down.
I prefer Jesus's way, to the mediaeval falsehood that is sola scriptura
Παράδοσις Paradosis, Tradition. Noun, handing down, passing on a teaching, or ordinance. Yes, that’s what the word means in this form and case. Not sure what you thought I meant.
It is not how protestants misrepresent tradition
Tradition gives the true meaning to scripture.
Again, where do we find what παράδοσις is? You still cannot answer this question.
Which is why succession is critical.
Clearly it is not.
So not sola scriptura then.
And then when you accept the authority of the church, and tradition
Listen to what scripture means.
If the church is the arbiter of what Tradition is and what is means, then you espouse Sola Ecclesia.
I leave it for our readers to discover the church handed down.
A sacramental liturgical church, that believed the eucharist REALLY WAS the "flesh of Jesus" valid only if performed by bishops in succession. In short, the catholic church.
It is still there. Believes the same things. For sure it grew from acorn to Oak.
You own church’s historians dispute this. The problem isn’t rouge historians within your ranks that is the problem it is that they know its bunk.
I am aware the Luther quote was a letter (I think) to Antwerp in (I think) 1523
My interest is in getting people to read source. Not cherry pick as all protestants do
Luther blames the devil for the fact others do not agree with him on his personal meaning of scriptura. When sola scriptura was clearly his problem. Everyone else did what he did. Invented their very own version, instead of as Irenaeus said - listen to the church.
I want them to read Ignatius, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr and so on.
Realize that they have been sold garbage by evangelicals and reformers.
I don’t buy this excuse. You were not willing to give the source because you did not know the source.
And I read what is there in early church doctrine same as RCC doctrine.
READ IGNATIUS TO SMYRNEANS! - Justin martyr - See what the eucharist really is. Not how many reformers profane it.
Yes, Every Christian should read the Early Church fathers. Not every protestant holds the same view of the Eucharist as a typical evangelical.
That said, the tradition Irenaeus speaks of below also puts Jesus at almost 50 years of age. He also traces this tradition back to the apostle John. However, we both know that is incorrect.
How do we know this? I do not believe in what I think is your concept of Sola scriptura. Meaning me and my bible alone. What I mean by sola scriptura, and what Lutherans and Reformed among others mean is the scriptures are the only
infallible and inerrant source of faith and doctrine. It’s the infallible part that is the operative word. Tradition is tested by the scriptures, never to be, along with anything else superior to the scriptures.
Here is the relevant section from Irenaeus: Against Heresies book II Ch XXII
4. Being thirty years old when He came to be baptized, and then possessing the full age of a Master, He came to Jerusalem, so that He might be properly acknowledged6 by all as a Master. For He did not seem one thing while He was another, as those affirm who describe Him as being man only in appearance; but what He was, that He also appeared to be. Being a Master, therefore, He also possessed the age of a Master, not despising or evading any condition of humanity, nor setting aside in Himself that law which He had appointed for the human race, but sanctifying every age, by that period corresponding to it which belonged to Himself. For He came to save all through means of Himself—all, I say, who through Him are born again to God8—infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord. So likewise He was an old man for old men, that He might be a perfect Master for all, not merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age, sanctifying at the same time the aged also, and becoming an example to them likewise. Then, at last, He came on to death itself, that He might be “the first-born from the dead, that in all things He might have the pre-eminence,”10 the Prince of life, existing before all, and going before all.12
5. They, however, that they may establish their false opinion regarding that which is written, “to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord,” maintain that He preached for one year only, and then suffered in the twelfth month. [In speaking thus], they are forgetful to their own disadvantage, destroying His whole work, and robbing Him of that age which is both more necessary and more honourable than any other; that more advanced age, I mean, during which also as a teacher He excelled all others. For how could He have had disciples, if He did not teach? And how could He have taught, unless He had reached the age of a Master? For when He came to be baptized, He had not yet completed His thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirty years of age (for thus Luke, who has mentioned His years, has expressed it: “Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be thirty years old,” when He came to receive baptism); and, [according to these men,] He preached only one year reckoning from His baptism. On completing His thirtieth year He suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age. Now, that the first p 392 stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information.2 And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan. Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the statement. Whom then should we rather believe? Whether such men as these, or Ptolemæus, who never saw the apostles, and who never even in his dreams attained to the slightest trace of an apostle?
6. But, besides this, those very Jews who then disputed with the Lord Jesus Christ have most clearly indicated the same thing. For when the Lord said to them, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad,” they answered Him, “Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?” Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period. But to one who is only thirty years old it would unquestionably be said, “Thou art not yet forty years old.” For those who wished to convict Him of falsehood would certainly not extend the number of His years far beyond the age which they saw He had attained; but they mentioned a period near His real age, whether they had truly ascertained this out of the entry in the public register, or simply made a conjecture from what they observed that He was above forty years old, and that He certainly was not one of only thirty years of age. For it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken by twenty years, when they wished to prove Him younger than the times of Abraham. For what they saw, that they also expressed; and He whom they beheld was not a mere phantasm, but an actual being5 of flesh and blood. He did not then want much of being fifty years old; and, in accordance with that fact, they said to Him, “Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?” He did not therefore preach only for one year, nor did He suffer in the twelfth month of the year. For the period included between the thirtieth and the fiftieth year can never be regarded as one year, unless indeed, among their Æons, there be so long years assigned to those who sit in their ranks with Bythus in the Pleroma; of which beings Homer the poet, too, has spoken, doubtless being inspired by the Mother of their [system of] error:—
Οἱ δὲ θεοὶ πὰρ Ζηνὶ καθήμενοι ἠγορόωντο
Χρυσέψ ἐν δαπέδψ:
which we may thus render into English:—
“The gods sat round, while Jove presided o’er,
And converse held upon the golden floor.”
Irenaeus of Lyons. (1885). Irenæus against Heresies. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, pp. 391–392). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.
