Alasan reformed dan protestan bersolascriptura

[Jenova]

2 Tim. 3:15 Ingatlah juga bahwa dari kecil engkau sudah mengenal Kitab Suci yang dapat memberi hikmat kepadamu dan menuntun engkau kepada keselamatan oleh iman kepada Kristus Yesus.

3:16 Segala tulisan yang diilhamkan Allah memang bermanfaat untuk mengajar, untuk menyatakan kesalahan, untuk memperbaiki kelakuan dan untuk mendidik orang dalam kebenaran.

3:17 Dengan demikian tiap-tiap manusia kepunyaan Allah diperlengkapi untuk setiap perbuatan baik

Mana mungkin GRK menerima prinsip Sola Scriptura sebab kalau semua tradisi palsu bikinan gerejanya itu diuji menurut Kitab Suci sudah pasti semua kebohongannya terungkap,sebab Kitab Suci adalah alat uji untuk melihat apakah ada yang salah dari doktrin gereja seperti dikatakan oleh ayat tsb diatas.

Ayat tsb tidak mengatakan bahwa Kitab Suci yang ditafsirkan oleh Magisterium Katolik yang bermanfaat untuk menyatakan kesalahan,malah semua tradisi bikinan Magisterium akan terbongkar kepalsuannya kalau diuji oleh kebenaran Kitab Suci.

Ayat tsb sudah menegaskan bahwa Kitab Suci sudah “memperlengkapi” manusia untuk semua perbuatan baik,jadi bukan tradisi buatan manusia yang malah banyak menghasilkan perbuatan jahat yang bersifat penyembahan berhala.

Yeremia 17:5 Beginilah firman Tuhan: "Terkutuklah orang yang mengandalkan manusia, yang mengandalkan kekuatannya sendiri, dan yang hatinya menjauh dari pada Tuhan!

Menolak sola-scriptura bukan berarti menolak otoritas Kitab Suci, malah sebaliknya kami memegang teguh otoritas Kitab Suci.
Tetapi sekali lagi, ajaran rasul dan ajaran penerus2 para rasul tidak ada satupun  yg hanya menggunakan Kitab Suci dalam menguji doktrin2, melainkan selalu menggunakan Kitab Suci DAN Tradisi Suci (ajaran tertulis selain Kitab Suci + ajaran lisan).
Otoritas terakhir dalam memutuskan suatu doktrin harus diterima atau ditolak pun TIDAK terletak dalam Kitab Suci, melainkan diputuskan dalam sidang para rasul, mengikuti Mat 18 : 18, sebagaimana telah dicontohkan dan dilakukan oleh bapa2 Gereja Perdana dalam konsili2 (misal: konsili  Yerusalem, konsili Nisea, Konsili Efesus, dsb).

Silahkan apa definisi atau pemahaman anda mengenai prinsip Sola Scriptura itu ?

Apakah salah kalau gereja menguji semua doktrin gereja berdasarkan kebenaran Kitab Suci ?

Atau hanya ditelan saja mentah mentah seperti jemaat gereja anda yang hanya boleh membeo kepada Magisterium ???

Sudah dijawab di atas!

Athanasius (300?-375)

“The Holy Scriptures, given by inspiration of God, are of themselves sufficient toward the discovery of truth. (Orat. adv. Gent., ad cap.) The Catholic Christians will neither speak nor endure to hear anything in religion that is a stranger to Scripture; it being an evil heart of immodesty to speak those things which are not written,” (Athanasius, Exhort. ad Monachas).

Athanasius sendiri mengatakan bahwa Kitab Suci sudah cukup mengungkapkan kebenaran Tuhan makanya klaim arogansi gereja anda bahwa tradisi hasil rekayasanya itu sejajar dengan Kitab Suci hanyalah ajaran anti Kitab Suci belaka,karena sudah menyimpang dari Kitab Suci (stranger to Scripture).

Bagaimana mungkin mensejajarkan wahyu Allah dengan tradisi bikinan manusia yang rentas heresy.
Bukti buktinya sudah berjibun saya paparkan di forum ini.

Ini salah satu bukti lagi bagaimana prinsip Sola Scriptura diajarkan oleh teolog klasik.

Weleh... sudah memutilasi ajaran Athanasius, masih ngeyel pula menyelewengkan ajarannya dan mengatakan Athanasius mengajarkan sola scriptura!
Ini lho kalimat utuh dari tulisan Athanasius yg sudah Anda mutilasi itu!
Aku berikan pula link ke naskah aslinya. Jika keberatan dengan versi terjemahan di link tersebut, silakan Anda berikan link terjemahan versi yg Anda percayai, aku jamin 100% bahwa kutipan Anda itu memutilasi tulisan Athanasius yg mengatakan bahwa: "MESKIPUN Kitab Suci cukup untuk menyatakan kebenaran, tetapi ada ajaran2 lain yg berguna dan diteruskan oleh para penerus rasul"!!

Link ke naskah utuh: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2801.htm
For although the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth —while there are other works of our blessed teachers compiled for this purpose, if he meet with which a man will gain some knowledge of the interpretation of the Scriptures, and be able to learn what he wishes to know—still, as we have not at present in our hands the compositions of our teachers, we must communicate in writing to you what we learned from them—the faith, namely, of Christ the Saviour; lest any should hold cheap the doctrine taught among us, or think faith.

Prinsip Sola Scriptura adalah menerima ajaran siapapun kalau itu memang didukung oleh kebenaran Kitab Suci dan menolak semua ajaran yang :

1.   Kontradiksi dengan Kitab Suci hasil tulisan para Rasul

2.   Mencederai kebenaran Kitab Suci

3.   Tidak ada dukungan Kitab Sucinya sama sekali.

Aku tidak mempermasalahkan jika Anda mau menerima ajaran manapun dengan syarat apapun.
Yang aku permasalahkan adalah standard ganda yg Anda terapkan.
Anda mengacu tulisan Gregory of Nyssa: “On the soul and resurrection”.
Ajaran Gregory dalam tulisan ini mengenai purgatory Anda tolak, tetapi pada saat yg bersamaan ajaran Gregory untuk mengacu pada Kitab Suci Anda jadikan landasan bersola-scriptura (padahal Gregory of Nyssa mengakui otoritas Kitab Suci tapi tidak pernah bersola scriptura)

Tidak mungkin saya mengutip apa yang tidak relevan dan silahkan anda buktikan apa yang salah dari kutipan saya ketimbang hanya bersembunyi dengan kalimat anda tsb diatas.

Lah... Silakan dibaca baik2 postingan2ku itu.
Aku tidak sembarangan mengatakan kutipan Anda salah, justru sebaliknya telah aku berikan kutipan yg lebih lengkap disertai link ke naskah utuhnya, dan sudah aku buktikan bahwa kutipan2 Anda itu telah memutilasi kalimat / paragraf dan diselewengkan artinya dari konteks tulisan itu seutuhnya.
Silakan dibaca baik2 lagi!

GRK sudah sangat terkenal dengan apa yang disebut sebagai tehnik “equivocation Paralelism Fallacy” yang suka memanipulasi kalimat dengan cara memparalelkan kalimat kalimat sedemikian rupa sehingga makna yang sejatinya direlatifisasikan untuk mendukung ajaran mereka seperti contohnya :

PARALELISME DAN PELABELINGAN MARIA TERHADAP Yesus

... ... ...

LOL... OOT lagi, silakan topik mengenai Maria dibahas di thread terpisah.
Sudah aku tanggapi beberapa tuduhan2 para anti-katolik mengenai Maria di sini:
http://forumimankristen.com/index.php/topic,1850.0.html

[Jenova]

Silahkan tunjukkan dibuku mana Athanasius berkata demikian ?

Protestan tidak pernah menolak tradisi gereja manapun kalau itu tidak bertentangan dengan kebenaran Kitab Suci sebab prinsip utama Sola Scriptura adalah “Back to Bible”

Kalau kita mau menguji suatu tradisi manusia diluar wahyu Tuhan yang sudah tertulis haruslah  menggunakan Kitab Suci bukan tradisi gereja yang menguji Kitab Suci atau tidak boleh menguji tradisi gereja karena dianggap sejajar dengan Kitab Suci.

Matius 22:29 Yesus menjawab mereka: "Kamu sesat, sebab kamu tidak mengerti Kitab Suci maupun kuasa Allah
Jelas sekali ayat tsb mengajarkan bahwa Kitab Suci disini merupakan alat ukur apakah doktrin gereja itu sesat atau tidak,bukan tradisi bikinan manusia yang menjadi ukuran.

Yesus selalu mengutip ayat Kitab Suci melawan kesesatan para Ahli Taurat dan cobaan si Iblis bukan pakai tradisi bikinan manusia.

Mat. 4:3 Lalu datanglah si pencoba itu dan berkata kepada-Nya: "Jika Engkau Anak Allah, perintahkanlah supaya batu-batu ini menjadi roti."
4:4 Tetapi Yesus menjawab: "Ada tertulis: Manusia hidup bukan dari roti saja, tetapi dari setiap firman yang keluar dari mulut Allah."
4:5 Kemudian Iblis membawa-Nya ke Kota Suci dan menempatkan Dia di bubungan Bait Allah,
4:6 lalu berkata kepada-Nya: "Jika Engkau Anak Allah, jatuhkanlah diri-Mu ke bawah, sebab ada tertulis: Mengenai Engkau Ia akan memerintahkan malaikat-malaikat-Nya dan mereka akan menatang Engkau di atas tangannya, supaya kaki-Mu jangan terantuk kepada batu."
4:7 Yesus berkata kepadanya: "Ada pula tertulis: Janganlah engkau mencobai Tuhan, Allahmu!"
4:8 Dan Iblis membawa-Nya pula ke atas gunung yang sangat tinggi dan memperlihatkan kepada-Nya semua kerajaan dunia dengan kemegahannya,
4:9 dan berkata kepada-Nya: "Semua itu akan kuberikan kepada-Mu, jika Engkau sujud menyembah aku."
4:10 Maka berkatalah Yesus kepadanya: "Enyahlah, Iblis! Sebab ada tertulis: Engkau harus menyembah Tuhan, Allahmu, dan hanya kepada Dia sajalah engkau berbakti!

Yesus tidak pernah mengatakan ada tradisi ,...dst

Inilah intisari apa yang dimaksud oleh Rasul Paulus sbb :

I Korintus  4:6 Saudara-saudara, kata-kata ini aku kenakan pada diriku sendiri dan pada Apolos, karena kamu, supaya dari teladan kami kamu belajar apakah artinya ungkapan: "Jangan melampaui yang ada tertulis", supaya jangan ada di antara kamu yang menyombongkan diri dengan jalan mengutamakan yang satu dari pada yang lain.

Lha... Link ke buku Athanasius yg membuktikan bahwa Anda memutilasi tulisannya itu sudah aku berikan tho di atas kutipannya?
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2801.htm

[Jenova]

Sudah saya jawab diatas bahwa Protestan tidak menolak ajaran siapapun kalau itu memang ada dukungan Kitab Sucinya bukan hasil manipulasi ayat dengan menggunakan tehnik “Equivocation Paralelism Fallacy”.

Banyak teolog yang ajarannya sebagian Alkitabiah tetapi ada bagian juga yang tidak Alkitabiah sehingga harus ditolak.

Aku tidak mempermasalahkan jika Anda mau menerima ajaran manapun dengan syarat apapun.
Yang aku permasalahkan adalah standard ganda yg Anda terapkan.
Anda mengacu tulisan Gregory of Nyssa: “On the soul and resurrection”.
Ajaran Gregory dalam tulisan ini mengenai purgatory Anda tolak, tetapi pada saat yg bersamaan ajaran Gregory untuk mengacu pada Kitab Suci Anda jadikan landasan bersola-scriptura (padahal Gregory of Nyssa mengakui otoritas Kitab Suci tapi tidak pernah bersola scriptura)

[Jenova]

Kalau butir satu dipegang teguh kok banyak ajarannya yang menyimpang seperti bukti bukti yang sudah banyak saya kutip disini ?

Bagimana anda memegang Akitab Suci dan tradisi bikinan gereja sekali gus kalau keduanya berkontradiksi satu sama lain ?

Yesus sendiri berkata : “ …. the scripture cannot be broken (Yoh.10:35),……ini sangat kontras dengan perkataan Yesus mengenai tradisi :

Matius 15:3 Tetapi jawab Yesus kepada mereka: "Mengapa kamupun melanggar perintah Allah demi adat istiadat nenek moyangmu?

Markus 7:8 Perintah Allah kamu abaikan untuk berpegang pada adat istiadat manusia."

Jadi disini jelas sekali ajaran Yesus yang mengkontraskan  antara Kitab Suci dengan tradisi bahwa memang otoritasnya jelas berbeda total,tetapi gereja dengan angkuhnya mengatakan bahwa tradisi bikinan Magisteriumnya setara dengan wahyu Tuhan ???

Kalau mereka mengatakan bahwa tradisi itu diwariskan turun menurun oleh para Rasul melalui apa yg mereka anggap sebagai Bapa Bapa Gereja ternyata banyak Bapa Gereja yang malah mendukung prinsip Sola Scriptura yaitu bahwa hanya Kitab Suci adalah ukuran yang final bagi semua doktrin gereja.

Ajaran menyimpang dari mana dulu nih???
Mungkin ajaran katolik memang menyimpang dari interpretasi sola-scripturist modern, tetapi ajaran Gereja Katolik selalu sama dengan ajaran2 Gereja Perdana, dibuktikan dari tulisan2 bapa2 Gereja Perdana, hasil konsili2 Gereja Purba, dokumen2 sejarah, dsb.

Ajaran Katolik pun tidak pernah menyimpang dari Kitab Suci, karena bapa2 Gereja dan konsili2 Gereja pun selalu menggunakan Kitab Suci dalam mempertahankan doktrin2 Gereja.

Mungkin, ajaran katolik hanya menyimpang dari interpretasi sola-scripturist modern.

[solideogloria]

Lah... kan sudah aku tunjukkan kalo kutipan dari teolog yg Anda kasih itu tidak ada satupun yg valid, karena dipotong2 dan diartikan di luar konteksnya? Sudah aku berikan pula link utk membaca lengkap tulisan2 teolog2 tersebut.

Semua kutipan saya menunjukkan bahwa mereka hanya mengakui Kitab Suci sebagai satu satunya kebenaran yahg Absolut didalam iman kristen (Regula Fidei).

Tradisi Suci adalah wahyu Tuhan yang belum dalam bentuk tertulis bukan seperti semua tradisi rekayasa gereja anda yang berjalan terus selama ribuan tahun dan sudah jauh menyimpang dari Regula Fidei tsb diatas !

Silahkan tunjukkan mana kalimat yang saya kutip itu yang tidak sesuai dengan prinsip Sola Scriptura !

Ingat bahwa dijaman banyak para  teolog klasik itu GRK belum lahir termasuk semua tradisi palsu yg sudah jauh menyimpang itu.

Kalau mereka berbicara mengenai tradisi suci itu hanya menyangkut wahyu Tuhan yang sudah diterima oleh para Rasul tetapi masih dalam bentuk lisan bukan seperti semua tradisi karangan gereja seperti yang anda miliki itu.

1 Corinthians 11:2 - Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ. I praise you that you keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you (NIV).

Jelas sekali ayat diatas mengatakan bahwa tradisi adalah apa yang sudah diajarkan oleh para Rasul.

2 Tes.2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Jadi tradisi rasuliah pada jaman itu memang ada yang sudah tertulis dan ada yang masih dalam bentuk lisan karena masih didalam proses penulisan.

Jadi apa yang saya kritik selama ini yaitu semua tradisi palsu hasil rekayasa gereja anda itu selama ribuan tahun setelah semua para Rasul meninggal bahwa itu sama sekali bukan tradisi rasuliah yang dimaksud didalam Kitab Suci,melainkan hanya doktrin yang direkayasa gereja demi untuk meninggikan manusia menjadi seperti Tuhan atau dewa belaka.

2 Thessalonians 3:6 - 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.

Jelas sekali dikatakan bahwa tradisi disini adalah yang diterima dari para Rasul.

Mana mungkin ada tradisi para Rasul seperti ajaran ajaran gereja dibawah ini :

1.   Prayers for the dead. (A.D. 300)
2.   Making the sign of the cross. (300)
3.   Wax candles. (320)
4.   Veneration of angels and dead saints, and use of images. (375)
5.   The beginning of mass as a daily celebration. (394)
6.   The worship and exaltation of Mary and use of term "Mother of God"(431)
7.   Priests begin to dress differently from laity. (500)
8.   Extreme unction. (526)
9.   The doctrine of purgatory, instituted by Gregory I. (593)
10.   The Latin Language used in worship and prayer Gregory I. (600)
11.   Prayers directed to Mary, dead saints and angels. (600)
12.   Title of "Pope" or "universal bishop" first given to Boniface III. (607)
13.   Kissing the pope's foot, began with Pope Constantine. (709)
14.   Temporal power of the popes, conferred by Pepin, King of France. (750)
15.   Worship of the cross, image, and relics authorized in (786).
16.   Holy water, mixed with a pinch of salt and blessed by a priest. (850)
17.   Worship of St. Joseph. (890)
18.   College of Cardinals established. (927)
19.   Canonization of dead saints, first by Pope John XV. (995)
20.   Fastings on Fridays and during Lent. (998)
21.   The mass developed as a sacrifice and attendance made mandatory. (11th Century)
22.   Celibacy of the priesthood, decreed by Pope Gregory VII. (1079)
23.   The rosary, used in prayer. (1090)
24.   The Inquisition, instituted by the Council of Verona. (1184)
25.   Sale of Indulgences. (1190)
26.   Transubstantiation, proclaimed by Pope Innocent III. (1215)
27.    Auricular (private) confession of sins to a priest, instituted by Pope Innocent III in Lateran Council. (1215)
28.   Adoration of wafer (Host), decreed by Pope Honorius III. (1220)
29.   Bible forbidden to laymen and placed on Index of Forbidden Books by Council of Valencia. (1229)
30.   The Scapular, invented by Simon Stock, an English monk. (1251)
31.   Cup forbidden to the people at communion by Council of Constance. (1414)
32.   Purgatory proclaimed as a dogma by Council of Florence. (1439)
33.   The doctrine of seven sacraments affirmed. (1439)
34.   The Ave Maria (Hail Mary) invented and completed 50 years later. (1508)
35.   Jesuit order founded by Loyola. (1534)
36.   Tradition declared to be of equal authority with the Bible by Council of Trent. (1545)
37.   The Apocryphal books added to the Bible by the Council of Trent. (1546)

38.   Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, proclaimed by Pope Pius IX. (1854)
39.   Syllabus of Errors, proclaimed by Pope Pius IX and ratified by the Vatican Council; condemned freedom of religion, conscience, speech, press, and scientific discoveries which are disapproved by the Roman Church; reasserted the Pope's temporal authority over all civil rulers. (1864)

40.   Infallibility of the pope in matters of faith and morals proclaimed by the Vatican Council. (1870)
41.   Public schools condemned by Pope Pius XI. (1930)
42.   Assumption of the Virgin Mary (bodily ascension into heaven shortly after her death), proclaimed by Pope XII. (1950)
43.   Mary proclaimed mother of the Church by Pope Paul VI. (1965)

My God !!!!! hobinya bikin wahyu baru !!!

[solideogloria]

Mengingat kebiasaan Anda yang selalu memotong2 kalimat dan menyalah-artikan tulisan early fathers, silakan dibagikan di sini link ke naskah lengkap dari Tract.26 in Matt., atau setidaknya satu paragraph lengkap dari mana Anda memotong kalimat tersebut, supaya kita lihat bersama2 apa maksud sebenarnya ketika Origen menuliskan hal tersebut (kalopun benar itu adalah tulisan Origen).

Saya berikan sumbernya dari penulis yang ex-Catholics sendiri :

The Church Fathers and the Authority and Sufficiency of Scripture
William Webster
________________________________________
Roman Catholics have leveled the charge against Protestantism that her teaching on sola Scriptura is not only unbiblical, but also unhistorical. This charge is cogently articulated by Philip Blosser:
The doctrine that Scripture alone is sufficient to function as the regula fidei—the infallible rule for the ongoing faith and life of the Church—is of highly improbable orthodoxy since...it had no defender for the first thirteen centuries of the Church. It does not belong to historic Christianity...The proponent of sola scriptura must be able to show from Scripture that the whole content of God’s revelation for the ongoing instruction of His Church was committed wholly to writing without residue, and also that verses referring to the necessity of holding fast to oral as well as written apostolic traditions (such as 2 Th 2:15) are limited in their reference to the first century. Moreover, he must be able to show from history, that a preponderance of the data support sola scriptura but do not support the extrabiblical traditions of the Church...The Protestant insists that the deposit of faith is exhausted without residue in Scripture and, therefore, that only those doctrines that are “implicit” in Scripture can be “deduced” from Scripture as valid “developments”...Sola scriptura assumes no ultimate need for the larger context of the Church’s tradition and teaching. However, not only is the canon of Scripture incapable of being identified apart from tradition...but the meaning of Scripture cannot be fully grasped.1
Blosser makes a number of important claims that impinge on the historicity of the doctrine of sola Scriptura. He writes that the doctrine of Scripture alone as the ultimate authority and infallible revelation and source of doctrine for the Church is unhistorical. He claims:
1) The doctrine was never taught in the early Church.
2) The early Church taught that the Scriptures are not materially sufficient; that is, not all of God’s revelation to the Church is contained in Scripture, but there are extrabiblical doctrines and traditions handed down orally from the apostles which form the complete corpus of revelation.
3) The early Church did not consider the Scriptures to be formally sufficient; that is, Scripture requires an authoritative magisterium invested with an infallible, normative interpretive authority.
According to Blosser, the doctrine of sola Scriptura is unorthodox. He claims that the early Church consistently affirmed the need for authoritative tradition to supplement and complete Scripture, because not all revelation is contained in Scripture, and it is not self–interpreting. These statements hearken back to the Council of Trent which established the authoritative position of the Roman Church with respect to the nature of tradition. Trent affirmed, firstly, that Scripture and tradition are both sources of revelation and that the Roman Church alone has the authority to interpret Scripture.2 Secondly, Trent stated that tradition is authoritative because it is revelatory in nature, it contains truths handed down orally (from Christ and the apostles) which are independent of Scripture, and the Church was established as the authoritative interpreter of Scripture. Trent draws a direct correlation between its interpretive authority and the early Church historically by saying that it is unlawful to interpret Scripture contrary to the unanimous consent of the fathers. So, Trent explicitly denied the material and formal sufficiency of Scripture. Although there has been widespread debate within Roman Catholicism over the precise teaching of Trent on the nature of tradition, it is significant to note that at the time of Trent, and for centuries following, there was no debate about the meaning of Trent’s language. It was universally believed that Scripture was both materially and formally insufficient. Robert Bellarmine (1542–1621) is a canonized saint and was one of the leading Roman Catholic apologists subsequent to the Council of Trent. He expresses the position of Trent and the Roman Catholic critique of sola Scriptura in these comments:
We assert that the whole necessary doctrine either concerning faith or manners is not contained explicitly in the Scriptures; and that consequently beyond the written word of God is required also the unwritten word of God, that is, the divine and apostolical traditions...They (i.e. the Protestants) think that if there were any apostolical traditions they do not now exist, that is, that there cannot be any certain proof had of any apostolical tradition...We, on the contrary, assert that there are not wanting certain ways and methods by which apostolical traditions may be manifested...If the authority of an apostle when giving an oral precept is not less than when giving a written one, there certainly is no temerity in considering any thing unwritten equivalent to the written word...I assert that Scripture, although not composed principally with the view of its being a rule of faith, is nevertheless a rule of faith, not the entire rule but a partial rule. For the entire rule of faith is the word of God, or God’s revelation made to the Church, which is distributed into two partial rules, Scripture and tradition.3
Note that Bellarmine says that revelation itself is not contained wholly in Scripture. He insists there are doctrinal truths that were committed orally to the Church by the apostles and passed down orally in the Church through her Tradition. This is not merely an issue of tradition as an authoritative interpretation of Scripture but of supposed doctrinal truths that are part of revelation but not contained in Scripture. Neither Bellarmine nor Trent believed the Scriptures to be materially sufficient.
    According to Trent, then, there is the written and unwritten word of God which together comprise the fullness of God’s revelation to man. The Roman Catholic Church claims to possess both, emphatically stating that this was the belief and practice of the Church in the beginning and throughout the ages of the Church historically. It was supposedly during the Reformation that this teaching was radically altered as 1500 years of Church practice was suddenly eradicated and a false dichotomy introduced between Scripture and the Church.
    In contradistinction to the Council of Trent, the Reformers insisted that Scripture alone is the special revelation man possesses from God; that there exists no oral revelation in the form of tradition once the apostolic age had ended; and that Scripture, in its essential teaching on salvation, is clear (perspicuous) and self–interpreting. In other words, Scripture is both materially and formally sufficient. The Reformers argued that the Church is not infallible but that all tradition and teaching must be subject to the final authority of Scripture. Scripture is the sole and final arbiter of truth, infallible and the ultimate authority. As John Calvin has stated:

[solideogloria]

Let this be a firm principle: No other word is to be held as the Word of God, and given place as such in the church, than what is contained first in the Law and the Prophets, than in the writings of the apostles; and the only authorized way of teaching in the church is by the prescription and standard of his Word. From this also we infer that the only thing granted to the apostles was that which the prophets had of old. They were to expound the ancient Scripture and to show that what is taught there has been fulfilled in Christ. Yet they were not to do this except from the Lord, that is, with Christ’s Spirit as precursor in a certain measure dictating the words...Yet this, as I have said, is the difference between the apostles and their successors: the former were sure and genuine scribes of the Holy Spirit, and their writings are therefore to be considered oracles of God; but the sole office of others is to teach what is provided and sealed in the Holy Scriptures. We therefore teach that faithful ministers are now not permitted to coin any new doctrine, but that they are simply to cleave to that doctrine to which God has subjected all men without exception.4
Calvin also states emphatically that the doctrines preached by the Reformers reflected the teaching and practice of the fathers themselves, thereby claiming historical continuity with the early Church. Calvin repudiates the charge that the teaching of sola Scriptura is unhistorical. He writes:
Moreover, they unjustly set the ancient fathers against us (I mean the ancient writers of a better age of the church) as if in them they had supporters of their own impiety. If the contest were to be determined by patristic authority, the tide of victory—to put it very modestly—would turn to our side...With a frightful to do, they overwhelm us as despisers and adversaries of the fathers! But we do not despise them; in fact, if it were to our present purpose, I could with no trouble at all prove that the greater part of what we are saying today meets their approval.5
Thus, in embracing and teaching sola Scriptura, the Reformers claimed to be restoring to the Church a principle that would find overall patristic consent and, therefore, historical validation. But this is, after all, only a claim. The question is, Can the claim be validated from the writings of the fathers as Calvin affirms? In this section, we will examine what the Church fathers taught about Scripture and tradition. We will find that the Reformers were correct in claiming patristic support for the principle of sola Scriptura and did, in fact, restore the Church to the position which she had universally embraced and practiced for centuries. It is the Roman Catholic teaching on tradition and authority which is unbiblical and unhistorical.
    All agree that the primary issue involved in this debate is how the revelation of God is passed on and preserved in the Church. The word tradition, in its historical usage covers both the content of the revelation and the process by which it is handed on to the Church through succeeding generations. G.L. Prestige explains:
The Bible assumes that religion is a thing given. The agents through whom the gift was made are inspired men, law–givers, prophets, and apostles authorised to hand over to the keeping of mankind the word of God and the means of His grace...So the faith was indeed once delivered to the saints, uniquely, because it was a unique and final revelation; and the significant fact of Christ’s resurrection, and the central truth that His death was a sacrificial act, as indicated by the mysteries of the Last Supper, formed outstanding features of the ‘tradition’ which St. Paul delivered to his converts. These things were not a human discovery, but a Gospel sent from God through ministers on whom woe must fall if they should fail to preach it. This conception of tradition was firmly retained by the ecclesiastical writers commonly referred to under the general title of Fathers. In their works the word paradosis or ‘tradition’ regularly means the delivery of teaching or the contents of the teaching delivered...It may refer equally either to oral or to written information.6
So the question is, Has the special revelation given us by God been passed on and preserved through Scripture alone or has it also been passed on and preserved through oral teaching as well? No one denies that the apostles began their ministry by teaching orally, but once their teachings were committed to holy Scripture, were there any essential truths that remained oral in nature, or was the entirety of the apostolic message preserved in Scripture alone? And did the early Church believe herself to be the ultimate authority, incapable of erring, or did she believe that all teachings must be validated from Scripture, her authority being contingent on her faithful adherence to Scripture? What exactly was the position of the early Church?
    In the writings of the Church fathers, the term tradition came to include three major categories historically:
1) The apostolic teaching or doctrine handed down from the apostles to the Church—called the apostolic tradition.
2) Ecclesiastical customs and practices.
3) A patristic consensus of the interpretation of Scripture.
In this article, we will examine the patristic understanding of apostolic tradition and Church father's commitment to the ultimate authority and sufficiency of Scripture.
The Authority and Sufficiency of Scripture in the Early Church
It is in the mid–second century in the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian that we encounter the first clear articulation of the concept of tradition. Prior to this, we find little use of the word by the earliest fathers, known as the Apostolic Fathers, and the apologists such as Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch and Athenagoras. Rather, we find a constant appeal to the Old and New Testaments as authoritative sources of doctrine. These fathers held a very high view of the authority of the Scriptures because they believed them to be inspired by God. In his Epistle to the Corinthians, Clement of Rome wrote that the Scriptures are the oracles of God.7Â He made reference again and again to the authority of Scripture with the prefix, ‘it is written,’ and quotes both the Old and New Testaments as inspired by the Holy Spirit.8 In the same Epistle, he quotes from the New Testament book of Hebrews:
For it is thus written, ‘Who maketh His angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire.’9 Â
Polycarp quoted the writings of Paul, calling them Scripture and including them under the general title of sacred Scriptures.10 Â Justin Martyr likewise affirmed the inspiration of the Old Testament prophets by the Holy Spirit.11 Â Athenagoras gave one of the strongest statements of all the Apostolic Fathers and apologists on the inspired nature of the prophetic writings of the Old Testament:

[solideogloria]

If we satisfied ourselves with advancing such considerations as these, our doctrines might by some be looked upon as human. But, since the voices of the prophets confirm our arguments—for I think that you also, with your great zeal for knowledge, and your great attainments in learning, cannot be ignorant of the writings either of Moses or of Isaiah and Jeremiah, and the other prophets, who, lifted in ecstasy above the natural operations of their minds by the impulses of the Divine Spirit, uttered the things with which they were inspired, the Spirit making use of them as a flute–player breathes into a flute.12
There is no appeal in these writings to the concept of tradition as that embraced by the Roman Catholic Church today. They are full of direct quotations from the Old Testament and paraphrases or direct allusions to the New. The writings of the Apostolic Fathers literally breathe the New Testament. With the exception of 3 John and Jude, every book of the New Testament is either cited or alluded to in these early writings. There is no appeal to an oral tradition. The word tradition, when used in its verb form, refers to the handing over of the faith, the means employed being the Scriptures, either the Old or New Testaments. Ellen Flesseman–van Leer makes these observations about the Apologists’ writings:
The only formal authority the Apologists call upon...is Scripture. Aristedes gives first a summary of the main points of the Christian creed and then an exposition of Christian morality, i.e., of the commandments of the Lord Jesus Christ. The source of knowledge of this Christian faith is the Scriptures of the Christians.13
The Antignostic Fathers
It is with the antignostic fathers of the mid to late second century, in particular Irenaeus and Tertullian, that we see the emergence of the twin concepts of Scripture and tradition. These fathers made reference to a tradition handed down from the apostles which carries inherent authority because, as they contended, it was apostolic in nature. They referred to this teaching repeatedly as the rule of faith or the canon of truth. The question is, What relationship did this apostolic tradition have to Scripture? Was it a body of doctrine different from Scripture in content, oral in nature and therefore a second vehicle of revelation? Or was it a teaching, the content of which is derived from Scripture and therefore subordinate to Scripture in authority? Let us look in detail at the teaching of these two fathers.
Irenaeus
Irenaeus is considered one of the most important of the early Church fathers. He was born around 140 A.D. in Asia Minor and in his early years was acquainted with Polycarp, the martyr from Smyrna, who was a disciple of the apostle John. He later became a bishop of Lyons and was highly respected as a Church leader and theologian. He is principally known for his refutation of the Gnostic heresies and defense of orthodoxy.
Irenaeus’ View of Scripture
Irenaeus leaves his readers in no doubt as to his view of Scripture. He referred to them over and over again as perfect and inspired,14 divine,15 the scriptures of the Lord,16 sacred,17 and authoritative.18 The Scriptures embody the fullness of truth handed down to the Church from the apostles, and being inspired, are fully authoritative for proof for the doctrinal teaching of the Church. He states:
Since, therefore, the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the Church, and is permanent among us, let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God, pointing out that our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth, and that no lie is in Him.19 Â
Irenaeus’ criticism of the Gnostic system was the lack of proof for their teaching:
Moreover, they possess no proof of their system, which has but recently been invented by them...Such, then, is their system, which neither the prophets announced, nor the Lord taught, nor the apostles delivered, but of which they boast that beyond all others they have a perfect knowledge. They gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures...20
It is clear that what Irenaeus meant by proof was documentation from Scripture. This lack of it proved to him that Gnostic teaching was not apostolic. In fact, Irenaeus goes on to say that if a doctrine cannot be proven from Scripture it is purely speculative and cannot be known.21 He made it clear  that revelation comes only through Scripture, so if Scripture is silent on a subject one cannot pretend to know what it does not reveal. He rejected the legitimacy of speculation on any matter not revealed in Scripture. The importance of this principle is apparent when applied to the subject of tradition. Irenaeus believed that true apostolic tradition cannot be purely oral in nature—it must be verified from the writings of the apostles. This was the point of contention between Irenaeus and his Gnostic opponents. The Gnostics claimed to possess an oral tradition from the apostles which was supplemental to Scripture and immune to the Scriptural proofs demanded by Irenaeus. We will look at this in more detail in a moment. According to Irenaeus, in order for tradition to be demonstrated as truly apostolic it must be documented from Scripture.
    He further buttresses his case by stating that Scripture is the medium by which the true apostolic teaching has been handed down to the Church. He acknowledged that the apostles initially preached orally, but goes on to say that their teaching was then committed to writing, and it is that writing—the New Testament—that is the medium by which the apostolic tradition or teaching is handed down to the Church. It is those writings which have become the ground and pillar of the faith of the Church:
We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.22
The phrase ‘handed down’ is the verb form of the word ‘tradition.’ What he is saying, then, is that the transmission of apostolic teaching is traditioned by means of Scripture. He writes further that the apostles committed to the Church the fullness of God’s revelation, and therefore, all things pertaining to the truth:

[solideogloria]

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 water of life.23 Â
It is clear that Irenaeus taught that Scripture is the pillar and ground of the faith. His reference to the apostles lodging the fullness of truth in the hands of the Church is primarily a reference to Scripture. He does assert that the Church possesses the truth which anyone can ascertain by listening to her preaching, and emphasizing that to embrace the teaching of the Church is to embrace the tradition of the truth:
Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?24
Irenaeus proposes here a hypothetical situation. The Churches have received the tradition of the truth from the apostles. What, he asks, if they had not left us any writings? Then it would be necessary to follow the teaching, the tradition, of those Churches which have had direct contact with the apostles. The operative phrase here is, ‘what if the apostles had not left us their writings.’ But in point of fact they have left us their writings. And the point he makes is that while the Church does preach and teach orally, the doctrinal content of that preaching and teaching is directly verifiable from the written Scriptures. Irenaeus is not affirming the existence of oral tradition. He is simply presenting a hypothetical situation as a way of combating the Gnostic heretics.
    The Bible is the means by which the traditio (tradition), or teaching of the apostles is transmitted from generation to generation and by which true apostolic teaching can be verified and error refuted. Irenaeus actually uses a form of the word ‘tradition’ to convey this idea. The importance of Scripture to Irenaeus as a doctrinal norm can be seen from the fact that, as Ellen Flesseman—van Leer put it:
The entire book of Adversus Haereses is broadly speaking but a demonstration from Scripture that the Church doctrine is right and the gnostic doctrine false...If Irenaeus wants to prove the truth of a doctrine materially, he turns to Scripture, because therein the teaching of the apostles is objectively accessible. Proof from tradition and Scripture serve one and the same end: to identify the teaching of the Church as the original apostolic teaching. The first establishes that the teaching of the Church is the apostolic teaching, and the second, what this apostolic teaching is.25  
J.N.D. Kelly writes:
His (Irenaeus’) real defence of orthodoxy was founded upon Scripture.26
R.P.C. Hanson comments:
The whole purpose of Irenaeus, at least, as we can reliably collect it from the prefaces and endings of each of the books of Adversus Heareses, was to refute the Gnostics from Scripture...Irenaeus will allow Scripture alone as his source of information about God, and if Scripture tells us nothing, then we can know nothing.27
In addition, Irenaeus states that the meaning of Scripture is not obscure. He says it can be easily apprehended by those who are willing to receive the teaching of Scripture as a whole, for Scripture itself clearly reveals its main message:
Since, therefore, the entire Scriptures, the prophets, and the Gospels, can be clearly, unambiguously, and harmoniously understood by all, although all do not believe them; and since they proclaim that one only God, to the exclusion of all others, formed all things by His word, whether visible or invisible, heavenly or earthly, in the water or under the earth, as I have shown from the very words of Scripture; and since the very system of creation to which we belong testifies, by what falls under our notice, that one Being made and governs it—those persons will seem truly foolish who blind their eyes to such a clear demonstration, and will not behold the light of the announcement [made to them]; but they put fetters upon themselves, and every one of them imagines, by means of their obscure interpretations of the parables, that he has found out a God of his own.28
To Irenaeus, then, Scripture is the full and final revelation given by God to man through the apostles. It is inspired and authoritative and a source of proof for discerning truth and error. It is Scripture that has final and sufficient authority and is the ground and pillar of the Church’s faith. The Scriptures are both materially and formally sufficient.
    But the question arises, Did not Irenaeus also appeal to tradition as a source of authority? And did he not speak of the authority of the Church? The answer to both questions is yes. But this affirmation does not negate the fact that, for Irenaeus, Scripture is the final authority in all matters of faith. This becomes clear upon examination of his teaching on tradition and ecclesiastical authority.
Irenaeus and Apostolic Tradition
Irenaeus speaks often of tradition in his writings. He constantly referred to an apostolic tradition handed down to the Church which he called the canon of truth or the rule of faith. One of the most frequently quoted passages used to substantiate his belief and teaching of tradition is the following:
As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world. But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the

[solideogloria]

same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shineth everywhere, and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth. Nor will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master); nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict injury on the tradition. For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it...But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth.29
It is not uncommon in Roman Catholic apologetic literature to see this particular passage quoted as confirmation of their concept of tradition. For example, under the heading of Sacred Tradition is a True Source of Revelation, listed in the Doctrinal Index of his book, The Faith of the Early Fathers, William Jurgens cites it to support this point of view. Roman Catholic apologist, Robert Sungenis, in Not By Scripture Alone, also gives the above quote and then makes this comment:
Obviously, Irenaeus believes not only in Scripture, but in the tradition that originates from the apostles. Moreover, Irenaeus also believes in the perpetuation of that tradition through the unbroken succession of presbyters (bishops and priests) in the Churches. How can Irenaeus be teaching that the oral tradition of the apostles was retired if he believes that the presbyters preserve it by means of successive generations...Catholics and Protestants accept as fact that after the first century God ceased the charism of divine inspiration. Hence Irenaeus is not saying that the preservation and perpetuation of the apostles’ oral tradition was retired, but only that the charism of inspiration had ceased. If anything, Irenaeus is assuring us that responsible and qualified men had systematically preserved the apostles’ orally inspired messages. Thus we have further proof of an unwritten Tradition that existed alongside the written Scripture in the life of the Church.30
Clearly, then, Roman Catholics employ the teaching of Irenaeus to support their own doctrine of tradition—doctrine which they claim is handed down orally from the apostles and is independent of Scripture. This position, however, is untenable when the teaching of Irenaeus is interpreted in context. The above quote (by Sungenis) is taken out of context. This quote is preceded by a lengthy statement defining what Irenaeus meant by tradition. That passage reads:
The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father ‘to gather all things in one,’ and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, ‘every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess’ to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send ‘spiritual wickednesses,’ and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory.31 Â
Note that according to Irenaeus, the Church has received what he callsthis faithfrom the apostles and their disciples. He then goes on to give the doctrinal content of this faith which are primarily the cardinal truths of the Creed. And this faith, and the content as he has defined it, is equated with what he calls the tradition. He puts it this way:
The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith...For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world...For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it.32
So, tradition, as defined by Irenaeus, is equivalent to the faith handed down from the apostles, which he often refers to as ‘the rule of faith.’ This rule has a very specific content, all of which is contained in Scripture. He makes no mention of other and purely oral doctrines that are essential for the faith.33  Every doctrine of the rule is derived from Scripture. Tradition, therefore, is the rule of faith expressly taught in Scripture. We have already seen that Irenaeus believed that what was initially taught orally by the apostles was later committed to Scripture, and that it was through Scripture that the apostolic tradition was transmitted to the Church. In other words, the apostolic teaching did not remain oral in nature. It was inscripturated. Thus, the content of the apostolic tradition preserved and preached (orally) in the Churches by the presbyters is identical in content with the teaching of Scripture. Tradition is verified by Scripture; they are one and the same. Contrary to Sungenis’ assertion, there is no other body of doctrine, oral in nature and independent of Scripture. The tradition of the Church is simply that teaching which is grounded upon and derived from Scripture. According to Irenaeus, apostolic tradition reaches us by two means: Scripture and the preaching and teaching of the Church, preserved in purity by the succession of her bishops. Did Irenaeus believe this rendered Scripture insufficient? By no means, because oral proclamation of the truth is simply the public proclamation of the teaching of Scripture. It is Scriptural truth presented orally, just as the present day preacher preaches a message derived from Scripture.  He is passing on truth orally. He is ‘'traditioning,’ that is, handing on truth. But the actual content of that teaching is the same as that which is found in Scripture. As A.N.S. Lane has observed:
The first clear attitude to emerge on the relation between Scripture, tradition and the church was the coincidence view: that the teaching of the church, Scripture and tradition coincide. Apostolic tradition is authoritative but does not differ in content from the Scriptures. The teaching of the

[solideogloria]

church is likewise authoritative but is only the proclamation of the apostolic message found in Scripture and tradition. The classical embodiment of the coincidence view is found in the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian.34Â
R.P.C. Hanson summarizes the position of Irenaeus on Scripture and its relationship to tradition:
It is easy to see why so many of the fathers regard the rule of faith as tradition. The rule of faith was the doctrine which the Church of their day was preaching, and they were convinced that the Church had always been preaching the same doctrine...Certainly, there is evidence in abundance that the very fathers of the second and third centuries who wrote most frequently of the rule of faith as interpreting Scripture regarded the content of the Scriptures as materially identical with the content of the rule of faith, or professed to draw all their doctrine from Scripture...Irenaeus claimed that the Church allowed neither addition to nor subtraction from the Scriptures...According to Irenaeus, says Flesseman–van Leer, ‘Scripture is the instrument with which to refute the heretics, and, what is even more important, the tradition of the Church (fides quae creditur) should be defended and proved through the Scripture. This is particularly true of Irenaeus’ later work, the Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching. The reader finds as he makes his way through it that it is no more or less than an exposition of the rule of faith, supported by copious quotations from the Bible which demonstrate that this rule is grounded upon Scripture.’35 Â
F.F. Bruce makes these observations about the relationship between the rule of faith, tradition and Scripture:
When the summary of the apostolic tradition is called the rule of faith or the rule of truth, the implication is that this is the church’s norm, the standard by which everything must be judged that presents itself for Christian faith or claims to be Christian doctrine, the criterion for the recognition of truth and exposure of error. If at times it is formally distinguished from Scripture in the sense that it is recognized as the interpretation of Scripture, at other times it is materially identical with Scripture in the sense that it sums up what Scripture says. Plainly what was written down by the apostles in their letters and what was delivered by them orally to their disciples and handed down in the church’s tradition must be one and the same body of teaching. As R.P.C. Hanson puts it, the rule of faith invoked by the church fathers is ‘a graph of the interpretation of the Bible by the Church in the second and third centuries, a statement of what was generally believed to be the essence of Scripture.’36
This helps us to understand Irenaeus’ reference to barbarians who received the truth—the faith—apart from written documents. In other words, they received the truth orally as it was preached.37 Â There are barbarians, he says, uneducated, illiterate men and women, who received the true faith and carefully preserved the ancient tradition. In the absence of written documents they had believed the true faith. Was Irenaeus suggesting that the tradition or teaching received by these barbarians, though oral in nature, was somehow different in doctrinal content from the teaching of Scripture? No, the doctrinal content of the faith received by the barbarians consisted of the rule of faith, which is the teaching of Scripture. The equivalent today would be a missionary teaching the gospel to an illiterate tribal people. The missionary works to learn their language and then communicates the truth of Scripture orally to them. This is oral tradition, passing on or handing down Scriptural truth in oral form. Tradition, in this sense, is never a separate revelation independent of Scripture, but the explicit teaching of Scripture, derived wholly from it and communicated in two ways, one oral and the other written. The mediums differ but the content of the truth in each case is the same. Thus, for Irenaeus, the content of tradition and Scripture is the same. As J.N.D. Kelly observes:
The whole point of his (Irenaeus’) teaching was, in fact, that Scripture and the Church’s unwritten tradition are identical in content, both being vehicles of the revelation. If tradition was conveyed in the ‘canon’ is a more trustworthy guide, this is not because it comprises truths other than those revealed in Scripture, but because the true tenor of the apostolic message is there unambiguously set out.38
Irenaeus and the Gnostics
To understand the appeal of Irenaeus to tradition, it is necessary to have a clear understanding of the circumstances which prompted it. He wrote Against Heresies to counter the heretical teachings of the Gnostics. Generally, the Gnostics did not dispute the authority of the books of Scripture (excepting Marcion). They accepted the entire canon as authoritative, but Irenaeus states that they fell into error on two counts. Firstly, they completely misinterpreted the text by imposing upon it an arbitrary allegorical method of interpretation. And secondly, they supplemented the authority of Scripture with another authority. The Gnostics claimed to have an oral tradition, independent of Scripture, handed down by the apostles which they alone  possessed. They sought to blunt the ultimate and final authority of Scripture by claiming that not everything the apostles taught was in Scripture. Irenaeus assesses the Gnostic position in these words:
When however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and assert that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For they allege that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but viva voce (orally)...For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to &‘the perfect’ apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the churches themselves.39
Note the logic used against the Church—that the Scriptures are not fully sufficient for understanding revelation. Unless, then, a person understands the oral tradition handed down from the apostles, in particular that given to the Gnostics, one cannot understand the Scriptures. The Gnostics alone could give the correct interpretation of Scripture in conformity with the oral apostolic tradition. G.W.H. Lampe summarizes this Gnostic teaching:
Among the Gnostics paradosis was a common word, and the idea of an esoteric tradition, imparted by the apostles to a select few, is commoner still; indeed, it is the foundation on which Gnostic teaching claims to rest...Valentenian Gnosticism cultivated an apostolic tradition. ‘Flora’, says Ptolmaeus, ‘may learn...being deemed worthy of the apostolic tradition...which we also have received by succession’...According to Irenaeus the Valentenians claimed that the truth in Scripture cannot be discovered by those who are ignorant of tradition. This tradition was

[solideogloria]

delivered orally, and this is the wisdom which Paul says: ‘we speak among the perfect.’...
    In Gnosticism, therefore, we encounter for the first time the idea of unwritten tradition as an authority for doctrine. Unlike the orthodox tradition, it is neither the raw material, as it were, of what is to become Scripture, nor the explication of what is contained in Scripture. It is wholly independent of Scripture and is even superior to it, since only in the light of the tradition can Scripture be understood. Doctrine and practice alike are founded upon it. It claims to be apostolic tradition, handed down in succession from the apostles.40
Ellen Flesseman–van Leer adds these insights:
The word traditio…in book III (Against Heresies)…clearly means the secret Gnostic tradition not delivered by writing, but merely by means of the living voice, to which the Gnostics appeal when they are refuted from scripture, saying that this tradition is the necessary key without which scripture is not understandable.41
Irenaeus refutes the Gnostic claims in two ways. He first establishes the fact that the apostles’ successors can be found in all the orthodox churches and can trace their succession directly back to the apostles. And, secondly, as we have seen previously, he points to the doctrinal content of the apostolic tradition. He tells us the content of the specific doctrines preached orally and handed down by the apostles to the churches and subsequently through the succession of bishops. The Gnostics, says Irenaeus, can claim no succession and their teaching contradicted what was universally embraced by the churches and proclaimed by the bishops. Although the church has authority, it is a contingent authority, that is, she has authority only because she possesses and is true to the apostolic tradition embodied in Scripture, not simply because of succession. As Church history clearly reveals, a particular see may claim apostolic succession and yet embrace heresy, thereby abrogating any true spiritual authority. Henry Chadwick writes of the importance of Scripture as a verification of the true apostolic tradition in light of the Gnostic challenge:
Papias differentiates between oral and written tradition to disparage the latter. This could no longer be safely said after the main Gnostic challenge had precipitated violent conflict over the nature of authentic Christianity. Marcion and Valentine arrived in Rome about 140; each claimed that his doctrine was the true faith and thereby denied the correctness or sufficiency of the doctrine being taught by the Roman clergy. It was good to be able to point in reply to the succession of occupants of the teaching chairs in which the martyred heroes St Peter and St Paul had once sat to instruct the Roman church. It was even better to be able to vindicate the proposition that the contemporary bishop and presbyters of Rome taught what the apostles had taught. It could be proved by written documents. The tradition was open to control in the words of scripture. The teaching of the apostles had providentially been put into writing, so that it was no matter of guesswork to ascertain its nature.42
When Irenaeus defines the doctrinal content of the canon of truth or the apostolic tradition, he defines it as simply the summation of the major teaching of the Old and New Testaments. Thus, any oral tradition separate from Scripture in content, which does not conform to the teaching of Scripture, is, in the view of Irenaeus, a Gnostic heresy. Succession proves that the bishops preach and teach the true apostolic tradition, while Scripture verifies what the content of that apostolic tradition is. Heiko Oberman confirms this when he says:
Irenaeus seems to identify the transmission of truth with episcopal succession. Inasmuch as the Apostles did not institute other Apostles but bishops, however, the episcopal witness is a derived witness, and its function is to preserve the integrity and totality of the original apostolic witness. To this end the Canon was formed...the writings of the Apostles which were in the process of being received—not produced by the Church—were understood to contain the original kerygma in toto.43
Tradition, then, according to Irenaeus, is another term for the oral proclamation of the truth of Scripture in preaching, teaching or creedal statements. It is not an independent source of revelation but a verbal presentation of the one authoritative revelation of God—the holy Scriptures. Thus, the foundation of tradition is the written word of God.
    It is significant to note that by the second century it was recognized that all apostolic truth necessary for the full understanding of the faith had been transmitted to the Church by means of Scripture. A separate body of doctrine, oral in nature and meant to supplement Scripture, did not exist. This concept originated, not in the Church, but with the Gnostic heretics. Flesseman–van Leer makes this comment:
For Irenaeus, the church doctrine is certainly never purely traditional; on the contrary, the thought that there could be some truth transmitted exclusively viva voce (orally), is a Gnostic line of thought.44
G.L. Prestige agrees with this assessment, writing:
The line taken by Irenaeus in defending orthodoxy against his heretical Gnostic opponents gives an instructive illustration both of his argument from apostolicity and of his practical dependence on the Bible. The apostles, he contends, first preached the Gospel, then by God’s will traditioned it in the Scriptures. Matthew, Peter, Paul, and John are cited as authorities behind the four Gospels (haer. lib. 3. cap. I). The heretics, however, deny the authority of the Scriptures, call them ambiguous, and say that the truth cannot be discovered from them by anybody who is ignorant of the tradition, which was not, according to themselves, delivered in writing, but orally. When, however, they are confronted with ‘that tradition which comes from the apostles and is preserved in the churches through the succession of the priests’—the episcopate is often designated the priesthood by the earlier ecclesiastical writers—they start objecting to tradition and say that they themselves know better than either bishop or apostle. ‘It comes to this,’ says Irenaeus: ‘they won’t agree either with the Scriptures or with the tradition’ (cap. 2). Yet, he continues, any honest investigator can observe in every church the tradition of the apostles; and the orthodox were ‘in a position to enumerate those who were appointed bishops in the churches by the apostles’, together with their successors, and to prove that their teaching bore no resemblance to that of the heretics...The heretics are pure innovators. Now comes the climax. Since the tradition derived from the apostles is an established and lasting fact, ‘let us revert to that proof which comes from the Scriptures, furnished by those apostles who also wrote the Gospel’ (cap. 5.1). And he proceeds to vindicate the faith out of the Bible for the rest of the book. If it is the duty of the Church to teach, it is the privilege of the Bible to prove.45

[solideogloria]

F.F. Bruce sums up Irenaeus’ position in these words:
The way of salvation and the tradition are in practice synonymous. But Irenaeus attached supreme importance to what was written with paper and ink. The apostolic tradition is for him the proper and natural interpretation of Scripture: the faith that he summarizes and expounds is what Scripture teaches. He is convinced of the perspicuity of Scripture; any honest student of Scripture must agree that this is its meaning.46 Â
The Roman Catholic appeal to Irenaeus for support for her doctrine of tradition is erroneous. Jaroslav Pelikan confirms the fact that the oral teaching of the apostles was later committed to writing which became the standard for determining apostolic tradition:
What the apostles had preached viva voce (orally), they had ‘handed down to us in the Scriptures as the pillar and bulwark of our faith.’ Not to assent to the content of these scriptures was to hold in contempt those who had communion with Christ the Lord...So it was that the terms apostolic, catholic, traditional, and orthodox became synonymous terms. The apostolic dogmas was a standard term for that which was believed, taught and confessed by the orthodox catholic church on the basis of the word of God.47
The parallels between the claims of Roman Catholicism and those of the Gnostics are clear. By teaching the existence of an oral apostolic tradition independent of Scripture as a separate vehicle of revelation, and the inability to understand Scripture apart from that tradition, the Roman Catholic Church has embraced a Gnostic heresy repudiated by Irenaeus and the fathers in general.
Tertullian
Tertullian was born in Carthage in North Africa and practiced law before his conversion to Christianity ca. A.D. 193. He was a prolific writer and has been called the ‘Father of Latin Christianity.’ He was most likely a layman and his writings were widely read. He had a great influence upon the Church fathers of subsequent generations, especially Cyprian.
    The teaching of Tertullian on apostolic tradition and its relationship to Scripture is a mirror image of Irenaeus. Like him, Tertullian believed the revelation of God to be the ultimate authority for the Church. This revelation was handed down in the Old Testament Scriptures and through Jesus Christ to the apostles who in turn faithfully handed on this teaching to the churches which they founded. Tertullian referred to the doctrine which the apostles taught as tradition,48 and equated this apostolic teaching with the fundamental doctrines of the faith and the gospel. Initially, this tradition or teaching was given orally by the apostles and later inscripturated in their Gospels and epistles:
Now, what that was which they preached—in other words, what it was which Christ revealed to them—can, as I must here likewise prescribe, properly be proved in no other way than by those very churches which the apostles founded in person, by declaring the gospel to them directly themselves, both vivâ voce, as the phrase is, and subsequently by their epistles.49 Â
So the means of passing on the authoritative message was both oral and written. Like Irenaeus before him, Tertullian stressed that the true apostolic message could be ascertained by availing oneself of the preaching of the apostolic churches. He was convinced that these churches had faithfully handed on the fullness of the apostolic message without error, dilution or addition through the succession of bishops. And as Irenaeus did, Tertullian used the verb form of the Latin word for tradition to describe the process of transmission—the handing down—of apostolic teaching:
From what and through whom, and when, and to whom, has been handed down that rule, by which men become Christians?50
But what was Tertullian’s view of the relationship between Scripture and tradition? When he used the term, tradition, did he have in mind an oral apostolic teaching that is a separate revelation from Scripture? That is, is God’s revelation contained partly in Scripture and partly in tradition, the two comprising the fullness of his truth? Are the Scriptures materially sufficient or do they need to be supplemented by tradition?
Tertullian’s View of Scripture
Tertullian unambiguously taught that the Scriptures consist of the Old Testament with the apostolic epistles and Gospels designated as the New Testament.51 In his descriptions of the Scriptures, he refers to them repeatedly again as divine, inspired, sacred, holy, the word of God and the voice of the Holy Spirit.52 He considered them fully inspired and authoritative for the establishing of doctrine and the refutation of error. His writings are replete with examples. He believed the Scriptures to be the sole authoritative source from which we derive Christian doctrine and an understanding of apostolic tradition. Ellen Flesseman–van Leer comments on the authoritative nature of Scripture for Tertullian:
Because scripture contains the revelation and is part of tradition, it has of course absolute authority...And therefore, if a doctrine or precept is written in the Bible, it cannot be but true, and if a dogma needs to be proved true, it is entirely sufficient to show that it is written. And even more important, scripture is not only sufficient evidence, but strictly necessary evidence for proving the truth of a dogma.53 Â
For Tertullian there is no other source of doctrine but Scripture, which he described as the records of the faith.54 Consequently, he emphatically stated that it is not possible to know truth apart from Scripture because it reveals the entirety of God’s special revelation. It is materially sufficient and if Scripture is silent on an issue it is illegitimate to raise theological speculation to the status of revelation. We see this principle applied by him in his conflict with those who promoted the patripassian heresy and sought to bolster their heretical teachings with the logic that nothing was impossible with God. While agreeing with the statement in principle, Tertullian repudiated the notion that one could determine the truth of what God has or has not done apart from the revelation of Scripture. He demanded Scriptural proof for all teachings:
Of course nothing is ‘too hard for the Lord.’ But if we choose to apply this principle so extravagantly and harshly in our capricious imaginations, we may then make out God to have

[solideogloria]

done anything we please, on the ground that it was not impossible for Him to do it. We must not, however, because He is able to do all things suppose that He has actually done what He has not done. But we must inquire whether He has really done it. God could, if He had liked, have furnished man with wings to fly with, just as He gave wings to kites. We must not, however, run to the conclusion that He did this because He was able to do it…It will be your duty, however, to adduce your proofs out of the Scriptures as plainly as we do...55
In his treatise Against Hermogenes, he states further:
I revere the fullness of His Scripture, in which He manifests to me both the Creator and the creation. In the gospel, moreover, I discover a Minister and Witness of the Creator, even His Word. But whether all things were made out of any underlying Matter, I have as yet failed anywhere to find. Where such a statement is written, Hermogenes’ shop must tell us. If it is nowhere written, then let it fear the woe which impends on all who add to or take away from the written word.56 Â
Tertullian clearly taught that if a proposed teaching or doctrine could not be verified through what is written it was to be rejected. All doctrines, according to Tertullian, must receive their proof from Scripture. This is a fundamental principle of his theology, occurring often in his writings.57 Â In his treatise On the Resurrection of the Flesh, Tertullian wrote that heretics should support their inquiries from the Scriptures alone:
Take away, indeed, from the heretics the wisdom which they share with the heathen, and let them support their inquiries from the Scriptures alone: they will then be unable to keep their ground.58 Â
These quotations demonstrate the high estimate Tertullian had of the Scriptures in both theology and practice. He described them as the instruments of doctrine and went so far as to say that it is by Scripture that believers have their being.59 In teaching that Scripture is the only source of doctrine and that all teaching must be proven from the written Scriptures, Tertullian affirmed that Scripture is the ultimate authority for validating truth and refuting falsehood and error. In his treatise Against Praxeas, he cites numerous Scriptures in refutation of Praxeas’ doctrine of God and in defense of the Trinity writing that it is unlawful to believe anything that has not been ‘handed down’ in the Scriptures.60 The term ‘handed down’ is a form of the word tradition. Therefore, true apostolic tradition is traditioned through Scripture. J.N.D. Kelly explains Tertullian’s perspective on Scripture:
Scripture has absolute authority; whatever it teaches is necessarily true, and woe betide him who accepts doctrines not discoverable in it.61 Â
The Rule of Faith
Although Tertullian held a very high view of Scripture and its authority, it is also true that he often spoke of tradition. However, we must carefully assess what he meant by it because he used it in two distinct ways. Often Tertullian’s references to tradition are quoted indiscriminately by Roman Catholics to promote a theology that is actually foreign to his true teaching and intent. Tertullian taught that tradition was the original apostolic preaching faith, which he called the tradition of the faith or the rule of faith. It was fully contained in Scripture, and was passed down to the Church in completeness by the apostles.62 Â These are the essential doctrines by which churches are established and men and women become Christians:
They obtained the promised power of the Holy Ghost for the gift of miracles and of utterance; and after first bearing witness to the faith in Jesus Christ throughout Judaea, and founding churches (there), they next went forth into the world and preached the same doctrine of the same faith to the nations. They then in like manner founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches…From what and through whom, and when, and to whom, has been handed down that rule, by which men become Christians?63Â
This tradition is preached orally and publically in the Churches, and is fixed in doctrinal content. It is not subject to addition or subtraction:
The rule of faith, indeed, is altogether one, alone immovable and irreformable.64 Â
But is this rule a separate vehicle of revelation independent of Scripture? The answer is no. In essence the rule of faith sets forth the major doctrines of Scripture. As Ellen Flesseman–van Leer points out:
Regula can signify for Tertullian a number of formulated religious truths, more particularly those which are to him the most fundamental ones...a summary, formulated according to the need of the moment, of the entire Christian faith...But even when regula signifies a more or less well–formulated summing up of the Christian doctrine in its entirety, it is not being given its most fundamental meaning...When Tertullian speaks here of regula he has in the mind the real purport of revelation, the essence of the events of the holy history and preaching of Jesus Christ, something so closely linked with revelation that it can never be separated from it. This, however, does not mean that it is fully the same as revelation; it is rather the implicit, essential meaning of revelation...not merely the fixation of faith, but its inmost meaning.65
The content of Scripture and the teaching of the rule of faith are identical. This is evident when we examine the doctrinal content of the rule as defined by Tertullian, which is very similar to Irenaeus’ canon of truth.66 Â It consists of the primary doctrines that make up the creed pertaining to the three persons of the Trinity and the judgment to come. It is obvious from the listing of these doctrines that they are all taught in Scripture. Tertullian taught that the apostles received the fullness of the revelation from Christ and passed on that revelation in its entirety in their preaching and epistles.67
    Just as Irenaeus taught that the oral teaching of the apostles was later committed to writing as Scripture, Tertullian taught that the tradition of the apostles was committed by them to the Church in the Scriptures as a will and testament.68 The apostolic tradition was summed up in the rule of faith, which was grounded in the truth of Scripture and preached orally in the Church, but  was not in doctrinal content oral in nature, that is, there were no doctrines included that were not explicitly taught in Scripture. It was derived from Scripture and embodied the fundamentals of the faith:

[solideogloria]

Now, faith has been deposited in the rule; it has a law, and (in the observance thereof) salvation...To know nothing in opposition to the rule (of faith), is to know all things.69 Â
Faith (the apostolic tradition) has been deposited in the rule and the rule is derived from Scripture, so Scripture is the foundation for faith and tradition. However, Tertullian also taught a concept of tradition that was indeed a novelty. He was the first to cite, as tradition, ecclesiastical customs and practices which had a long history of use in the Church, but were not explicitly mentioned in Scripture. He wrote of this in his treatise De Corona:
And how long shall we draw the saw to and fro through this line, when we have an ancient practice, which by anticipation has made for us the state, i.e., of the question? If no passage of Scripture has prescribed it, assuredly custom, which without doubt flowed from tradition, has confirmed it. For how can anything come into use, if it has not first been handed down? Even in pleading tradition, written authority, you say, must be demanded. Let us inquire, therefore, whether tradition, unless it be written, should not be admitted. Certainly we shall say that it ought not to be admitted, if no cases of other practices which, without any written instrument, we maintain on the ground of tradition alone, and the countenance thereafter of custom, affords us any precedent. To deal with this matter briefly, I shall begin with baptism. When we are going to enter the water, but a little before, in the presence of the congregation and under the hand of the president, we solemnly profess that we disown the devil, and his pomp, and his angels. Hereupon we are thrice immersed, making a somewhat ampler pledge than the Lord has appointed in the Gospel. Then when we are taken up (as new–born children), we taste first of all a mixture of milk and honey, and from that day we refrain from the daily bath for a whole week. We take also, in congregations before daybreak, and from the hand of none but the presidents, the sacrament of the Eucharist, which the Lord both commanded to be eaten at meal–times, and enjoined to be taken by all alike. As often as the anniversary comes round, we make offerings for the dead as birthday honors. We count fasting or kneeling in worship on the Lord’s day to be unlawful. We rejoice in the same privilege also from Easter to Whitsunday. We feel pained should any wine or bread, even though our own, be cast upon the ground. At every forward step and movement, at every going in and out, when we put on our clothes and shoes, when we bathe, when we sit at table, when we light the lamps, on couch, on seat, in all the ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead the sign.
    If, for these and other such rules, you insist upon having positive Scripture injunction, you will find none. Tradition will be held forth to you as the originator of them, custom as their strengthener, and faith as their observer. That reason will support tradition, and custom, and faith, you will either yourself perceive, or learn from some one who has.70 Â
Tertullian is referring specifically to customs and practices under the heading of tradition. We should note that these traditions applied to matters of secondary importance in the Church, many of which are no longer observed, such as triple immersion at baptism. It is clear from his teaching on Scripture though, that he repudiated any notion of oral tradition with respect to doctrine. Any doctrine that claims apostolic authority must be grounded in Scripture. As Kelly observes:
Tertullian’s attitude does not differ from Irenaeus’ in any important respect. He was an innovator, it is true, in extending the meaning of ‘tradition’ to cover what had been customary in the Church for long generations. In this sense practices like the triple renunciation and triple immersion at baptism, the reception of the eucharist in the early morning, the prohibition of kneeling on Sundays at Eastertide, and the sign of the cross could be described as traditions; one tradition might even be said to be at variance with another. In its primary sense, however, the apostolic, evangelical or Catholic tradition stood for the faith delivered by the apostles, and he never contrasted tradition so understood with Scripture. Indeed, it was enshrined in Scripture, for the apostles subsequently wrote down their oral preaching in epistles. For this reason Scripture has absolute authority; whatever it teaches is necessarily true, and woe betide him who accepts doctrines not discoverable in it.71 Â
In spite of the evidence, Roman Catholic apologists misinterpret and distort Tertullian’s teaching on tradition by neglecting to make the distinction he made between doctrine and customs and practices in his writings. They imply he taught that there existed some essential doctrine of the faith passed down through oral tradition that was not rooted in Scripture. For example, in Not By Scripture Alone, Joe Gallegos cites a portion of the above quotation indiscriminately and out of context, misleading the reader regarding Tertullian’s real position. In the following quote, he implies that Tertullian’s use of the word tradition is the same as the present day Roman Catholic concept:
On occasion, both Irenaeus and Tertullian specifically referred to Tradition as something distinct from Scripture. Tradition was applied in a narrow sense meaning those teachings which (though coincident with the Scriptures) have come down to us through unwritten means.72 Â
He then quotes Tertullian, as listed above, from De Corona:
If, for these and other such rules, you insist upon having positive Scripture injunction, you will find none. Tradition will be held forth to you as the originator of them, custom as their strengthener, and faith as their observer. That reason will support tradition, and custom, and faith, you will either yourself perceive, or learn from some one who has (De Corona 4).73
This citation does come from De Corona 4. But the context of Tertullian’s remarks is found in the paragraph immediately preceding in De Corona 3 where he defines what he means by tradition. Gallegos omits this, and by so doing, fails to inform his readers that Tertullian is referring, not to doctrines, but to customs, the majority of which are no longer even accepted or practiced by the Roman Catholic Church. As Sungenis misrepresented Irenaeus, so Gallegos misrepresents Tertullian.
Authority of the Church and Apostolic Succession
In addition to the authority of Scripture and apostolic tradition, Tertullian spoke of the authority of the Church. The churches have authority because they have received and have faithfully preserved and passed on the teaching of the apostles. We can know the true apostolic tradition by appealing to the doctrine proclaimed by the churches founded by the apostles.74 The authority of any church, then, comes from its adherence to apostolic teaching: