The order of revelation; Tradition comes first, later comes inspiration and the making of scripture.

[Xeno.of.athens]

Saint Luke Gospel is an excellent example of the process. He writes:

Dear Theophilus: Many people have done their best to write a report of the things that have taken place among us. They wrote what we have been told by those who saw these things from the beginning and who proclaimed the message. And so, Your Excellency, because I have carefully studied all these matters from their beginning, I thought it would be good to write an orderly account for you. I do this so that you will know the full truth about everything which you have been taught.​

Luke 1:1-4 GNB

 

[Clare73]

Saint Luke Gospel is an excellent example of the process. He writes:

Dear Theophilus: Many people have done their best to write a report of the things that have taken place among us. They wrote what we have been told by those who saw these things from the beginning and who proclaimed the message. And so, Your Excellency, because I have carefully studied all these matters from their beginning, I thought it would be good to write an orderly account for you. I do this so that you will know the full truth about everything which you have been taught.​

Luke 1:1-4 GNB

How does that establish the order of revelation?

Matthew, John and Peter composed the God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16) texts of
what they saw--his glory (Mt 17:2, Jn 1:14, Jn 2:11, Jn 19:35, Jn 21:24, 1 Jn 1:1-2, 1 Pe 5:1, 2 Pe 1:16-18).
So that's not tradition, that's eye-witness testimony (Jn 19:35).

And Luke wrote what he was told by eye-witnesses (Lk1:1-2, 2:9, 9:28-32) as Heb (2:3) is what he was told by those who heard Jesus.
That's more eye-witness testimony.

Then the recognition of these writings by the early Christians as God-breathed is by the testimony of the Holy Spirit to their spirits, not by tradition.

Finally, to read the writings that didn't make the cut is to see the real difference between them, and to agree..

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

How does that establish the order of revelation?

By reading what it says.

 

[Clare73]

By reading what it says.

Are you saying what you wrote is the authority for the order of divine revelation?

 

[FenderTL5]

Saint Luke Gospel is an excellent example of the process. He writes:

Dear Theophilus: Many people have done their best to write a report of the things that have taken place among us. They wrote what we have been told by those who saw these things from the beginning and who proclaimed the message. And so, Your Excellency, because I have carefully studied all these matters from their beginning, I thought it would be good to write an orderly account for you. I do this so that you will know the full truth about everything which you have been taught.​

Luke 1:1-4 GNB

That's certainly the order for St Luke..

 

[Clare73]

That's certainly the order for St Luke..

And for Matthew, John and Peter?

 

[FenderTL5]

And for Matthew, John and Peter?

for Matthew and John it could be the same. All four Gospels were written later, so the stories were circulating orally first. The Church was already established.
Epistles could have been different. I haven't given it much thought or study. However, Luke flat out says it, in scripture nonetheless.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

for Matthew and John it could be the same. All four Gospels were written later, so the stories were circulating orally first. The Church was already established.
Epistles could have been different. I haven't given it much thought or study. However, Luke flat out says it, in scripture nonetheless.

Saint Paul's letters seem to be reiterations of the verbal instructions he gave to the churches, and as saint Paul said, he wanted the churches to hold on to the traditions he had passed on to them.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Saint Luke Gospel is an excellent example of the process. He writes:

Dear Theophilus: Many people have done their best to write a report of the things that have taken place among us. They wrote what we have been told by those who saw these things from the beginning and who proclaimed the message. And so, Your Excellency, because I have carefully studied all these matters from their beginning, I thought it would be good to write an orderly account for you. I do this so that you will know the full truth about everything which you have been taught.​

Luke 1:1-4 GNB

I say there's irony in depending upon scripture to establish tradition. Also what gets overlooked in this passage and 2 Thess 2:15 which is used in the same manner, is specifically referring to tradition established by the Apostles. This is repeated in 2 Thess 3:6.

But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us. 2 Thessalonians 3:6

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I say there's irony in depending upon scripture to establish tradition. Also what gets overlooked in this passage and 2 Thess 2:15 which is used in the same manner, is specifically referring to tradition established by the Apostles. This is repeated in 2 Thess 3:6.

But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us. 2 Thessalonians 3:6

If one discounts any irony that is perceived and sticks to what is taught by saint Luke and saint Paul then Apostolic Tradition will be the superset of revelation of which holy scripture will be a proper subset.

 

[Ceallaigh]

If one discounts any irony that is perceived and sticks to what is taught by saint Luke and saint Paul then Apostolic Tradition will be the superset of revelation of which holy scripture will be a proper subset.

According to Luke 1:1-4 the full truth is found in what the Apostles wrote down. In other words, Luke is saying the FULL TRUTH of Christianity is contained within NT scripture. Not tradition, scripture.

It seems you even underlined that without realizing what Luke is saying.

I thought it would be good to write an orderly account for you. I do this so that you will know the full truth.

Luke is obviously saying what's written by him is superior to anything else.

And Luke is saying the FULL TRUTH is in the writing. Not most of the truth with the rest to be revealed in some other way and or at some other time.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Luke is saying the FULL TRUTH of Christianity is contained within NT scripture

That is not so.

"I do this so that you will know the full truth about everything which you have been taught."

is a statement about the truth taught to Theophilus; so, unless you want to contend that saint Luke sees Theophilus as an exhaustive cyclopaedia of Christian truth then it follows that saint Luke aimed to write down what he knew Theophilus had been taught. That implies a limit that your claim denies.​

It seems you even underlined that without realizing what Luke is saying.

Well, what I underlined is this:

I do this so that you will know the full truth about everything which you have been taught.​

Luke is obviously saying what's written by him is superior to anything else.

That is not obvious, it is not even implied.

And Luke is saying the FULL TRUTH is in the writing.

Nope, saint Luke writes that he is reiterating the full truth about what Theophilus was taught.

Not most of the truth with the rest to be revealed in some other way and or at some other time.

Yep, it is implying that saint Luke or some other person will teach more to Theophilus later. We need not look too far to see the "more". It is present in the book called "The Acts of the Apostles"

Dear Theophilus: In my first book I wrote about all the things that Jesus did and taught from the time he began his work until the day he was taken up to heaven. Before he was taken up, he gave instructions by the power of the Holy Spirit to the men he had chosen as his apostles.​

Acts 1:1-2 GNB

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Saint Luke Gospel is an excellent example of the process. He writes:

Dear Theophilus: Many people have done their best to write a report of the things that have taken place among us. They wrote what we have been told by those who saw these things from the beginning and who proclaimed the message. And so, Your Excellency, because I have carefully studied all these matters from their beginning, I thought it would be good to write an orderly account for you. I do this so that you will know the full truth about everything which you have been taught.​

Luke 1:1-4 GNB

Personally, I think it might make better sense to everyone if we simply cite Luke (and Acts) as an example of early Christian Historiography. We don't have to make more out of it than it is in order for it to have historical, even revelatory clout within a person's mind and heart.

 

[Ceallaigh]

That is not so.

"I do this so that you will know the full truth about everything which you have been taught."

is a statement about the truth taught to Theophilus; so, unless you want to contend that saint Luke sees Theophilus as an exhaustive cyclopaedia of Christian truth then it follows that saint Luke aimed to write down what he knew Theophilus had been taught. That implies a limit that your claim denies.​

Well, what I underlined is this:

I do this so that you will know the full truth about everything which you have been taught.​

That is not obvious, it is not even implied.


Nope, saint Luke writes that he is reiterating the full truth about what Theophilus was taught.


Yep, it is implying that saint Luke or some other person will teach more to Theophilus later. We need not look too far to see the "more". It is present in the book called "The Acts of the Apostles"

Dear Theophilus: In my first book I wrote about all the things that Jesus did and taught from the time he began his work until the day he was taken up to heaven. Before he was taken up, he gave instructions by the power of the Holy Spirit to the men he had chosen as his apostles.​

Acts 1:1-2 GNB

So Luke verifies that everything Jesus taught was written down in the Gospel and anything further to that has been written down by the Apostles. Not by St. Whoever in 495 AD. But by Jesus' Apostles. This just further confirms that everything we need to know, the full truth, is contained in the writings of the Apostles. The verses you've been providing are really good proof texts for sola scriptura.

 

[dzheremi]

I don't know that this is so revolutionary or disruptive an idea...things have to happen first before you can write about them having happened, right? So that prejudices the order of things rather naturally. I'm going to guess that if people are against this idea it's probably due to centuries of insinuations (by this point) by various academics in Europe and elsewhere working in what has been dubbed 'Higher Textual Criticism' which is also concerned with things like the order of the composition of the Bible, but as part of an 'enlightenment'-sort of project to treat the Bible as anyone would any secular piece of writing, when obviously for believers that's just not what it is. (Not even for those of us who recognize that it has a history, and did not fall out of the sky one day with 66 or however many books, a table of contents, and some handy maps and introductory materials like many Bibles have nowadays.)

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

So Luke verifies that everything Jesus taught was written down in the Gospel and anything further to that has been written down by the Apostles.

At least you can see that the gospel according to saint Luke is not exhaustive of Christian teaching.

Not by St. Whoever in 495 AD. But by Jesus' Apostles.

History plays out in time, eventually truths passed on in Apostolic Tradition become foundational in the fight against heresy; such was the case with Arianism.

This just further confirms that everything we need to know, the full truth, is contained in the writings of the Apostles.

That is not correct.

The verses you've been providing are really good proof texts for sola scriptura.

They are far better proofs that without Apostolic Tradition the holy scriptures cannot guard against some kind of heresy.

 

[Ceallaigh]

At least you can see that the gospel according to saint Luke is not exhaustive of Christian teaching.

Luke clearly said the gospel is exhaustive of what Jesus taught. Remember Paul said:

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. 9 As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. Galatians 1:8-9

And Paul referred to his writings as being Gospel in Romans 2:16 and 16:25

History plays out in time, eventually truths passed on in Apostolic Tradition become foundational in the fight against heresy; such was the case with Arianism.

That was already established in the writings of the Apostles. In other words NT scripture alone can be used to disprove Arianism.

That is not correct.

Saying something is incorrect without explaining why comes off as denial.

They are far better proofs that without Apostolic Tradition the holy scriptures cannot guard against some kind of heresy

Apostolic tradition is based on and rooted in what they wrote down. I seriously doubt you can cite one tradition that's not.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Luke clearly said the gospel is exhaustive of what Jesus taught.

Clearly it is not so, just read the gospel according to saint Luke and use it to establish the truth of the Dogma of the Holy Trinity.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Clearly it is not so

Then what did Luke mean when he wrote:

Dear Theophilus: In my first book I wrote about all the things that Jesus did and taught from the time he began his work until the day he was taken up to heaven.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Then what did Luke mean when he wrote:

Dear Theophilus: In my first book I wrote about all the things that Jesus did and taught from the time he began his work until the day he was taken up to heaven.

Saint Luke is continuing his account from the gospel that bears his name. The two works taken together will not yield an exhaustive presentation of all that Jesus did.