Irenaeus on Tradition

I have written 18 blogs in this series to finally get to what the early church fathers meant when they used the word, ‘tradition.’ Not because it was being put off, but because there was so much ground to cover to get to this point. Although it is important to look at the early church fathers to gain a window into what they believed and taught, first and foremost, one must remember that it is what Scripture says, over and above what the early church fathers said, that matters the most. So, as we saw in Tradition: Oral and Written, 2 Th 2:15, Pt 3, 2 Th 2:15 does NOT refer to an unknowable set of unwritten extrabiblical ‘traditions’ and supposedly handed down from the Apostles for the last 2000 yrs. Likewise, we also saw in New Testament Meaning of Tradition, Pt 11, Jesus did not speak favorably towards the ‘traditions’ of the Jews, so it makes little sense that He would institute a new set of ‘traditions’ that were only allowed to be handed down orally, traditions that were never mentioned or referred to in Scripture. So, this blog begins our investigation of ‘tradition’ by examining what some of the early church fathers actually wrote concerning ‘tradition.’

Church history has always been thought to be on the side of the Catholic Church in matters of what the early church fathers did or did not say. Many Protestants have been literally slaughtered in debates with Catholic theologians and apologists simply because they never read the early church fathers and had no idea what they wrote or how to respond when challenged on this topic. That was not the case during and after the Protestant Reformation. Early reformers took that ground away from the Catholic apologists as they were well studied in church history. Irenaeus and Augustine became favorites to quote in support of Sola Scriptura. And without the power to burn Protestants at the stake as heretics, Catholicism actually had to respond to Protestant criticisms concerning their beliefs and teachings. Now I don’t mean to insinuate that Protestants always ‘did the right thing’ concerning their treatment of Catholics, but Protestants have also been more willing to confront these doctrinal differences in the court of public opinion.

But it’s now 500 yrs after the Reformation, and Protestants have gotten fat and lazy. They have forgotten the lessons of the Reformation (Scripture alone, Christ alone, Faith alone, Grace alone, to the Glory of God alone) and begun embracing one ridiculous unbiblical belief after another. Examples would be the social gospel in the 19th century and the word/faith garbage in the 20th. There have always been differences in some doctrines and beliefs, but too many of the differences today are no longer biblical in nature, being based on feelings and emotion. Far too often, believers know nothing about what it is they actually believe, which causes them to seek structure and methodology or experience and humanism in their religion, instead of Jesus and the Cross.

A wise man once said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,” and that is exactly where we are today as far too many Protestants make the switch to Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Virtually no one has ever heard of Polycarp, Irenaeus, Athanasius, or John Chrysostom. If you are raised Catholic or Protestant, neither has much reason to ask serious questions about what they ‘say’ they believe. This series of blogs is meant to do just that: make you question what you believe and why you believe it.

His View of Scripture

In what is called the patristic literature, the word ‘tradition’ is first used by two of the most recognizable names of the early church fathers, Irenaeus and Tertullian. They are referred to as anti-gnostic fathers because they specifically defended the Church against the gnostic beliefs that Paul referred to in Colossians, although not by name. These two fathers referred to the ‘tradition’ that was handed down from the Apostles and the inherent authority that they carried. So, it's time to understand what Irenaeus actually meant when he used the word ‘tradition.’

Who was Irenaeus? Irenaeus was born sometime between 130 and 140 AD and died around 202 AD. He was the bishop of Lyons (in modern day France), and as a young man he was acquainted with Polycarp (69 to 155 AD), another early church father. Polycarp was a direct disciple of the Apostle John, who died around 98 to 100 AD. Irenaeus was one of the first early church apologists and is known for his 5 volume set entitled, Against Heresies, which refuted Gnosticism and defended Christian orthodoxy.

Judging from what he wrote in Against Heresies, Irenaeus was a strong believer in the inspiration and authority of Scripture over everything else, and referred to them often. Here are just a few quotes to prove this point: [1]

… being most properly assured that the Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and His Spirit … [emphasis added] [Against Heresies, II.28.2]

But that I may not be thought to avoid that series of proofs which may be derived from the Scriptures of the Lord … I shall plainly set forth from these divine Scriptures proofs to [satisfy] all the lovers of truth. [emphasis added] [Against Heresies, II.35.4]

These things are such as fall [plainly] under our observation, and are clearly and unambiguously in express terms set forth in the Sacred Scriptures. [emphasis added] [Against Heresies, II.27.1]

But our faith is stedfast, unfeigned, and the only true one, having clear proof from these Scriptures, which were interpreted in the way I have related; and the preaching of the Church is without interpolation. [emphasis added] [Against Heresies, III, 21.3]

… in the first place, we prove from the authoritative Scriptures that all the things which have been mentioned, visible and invisible, have been made by one God. For these men are not more to be depended on than the Scriptures … [emphasis added] [Against Heresies, II.30.6]

But, don’t take my word for it. Since the links are provided for these quotes above, I encourage you to check them out for yourself. The entire 5 book series is available online at ccel.org, and the audio version is available at Librivox.org.

His View of Tradition

Irenaeus saw the Scriptures as ‘divine,’ from God, clear and unambiguous, sacred and authoritative. Like all early church fathers, he had a very high view of Scripture. But what did he mean by ‘tradition’ when he used that word? In his own words, this is the ‘tradition’ that Irenaeus understood as existing in his day.

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. [emphasis added] [Against Heresies, III, 5.1]

Irenaeus called the doctrines that the Apostles taught in the churches of his day, the ‘tradition from the Apostles.’ And where did the church of his day find those teachings? In the unwritten and unknowable orally transmitted teachings supposedly handed down by the Apostles over the last 2000 yrs? No, he said they were found in Scripture. Let me say that again, Irenaeus said the tradition from the Apostles was “found in Scripture.” Irenaeus wrote, “... 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 …” So Irenaeus understood that you find the Apostles teachings, their traditions, in Scripture. He stated clearly that the Apostles were the authors of the Gospels. Irenaeus did not point to an unwritten Apostolic oral tradition of teachings handed down from the Apostles, something which is taught by the Catholic Church and presumed to exist today. Irenaeus understood that oral Apostolic teachings had been written down in the Scriptures that we have today. In other words, their doctrines, their traditions, had been inscripturated. That is the only conclusion you can come to after reading the above quote.

And we also see this reinforced here,

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. [emphasis added] [Against Heresies, III, 1.1]

The word, ‘tradition’ means ‘handed down,’ so you could say the apostolic oral teachings were ‘traditioned’ to us in the Scriptures.

We also find something else quite interesting in Irenaeus’ critique of Gnosticism. His criticism was based on their lack of proof for their own teachings from any of their writings or the Christian Scriptures. He stated,

Moreover, they possess no proof of their system, which has but recently been invented by them, sometimes resting upon certain numbers, sometimes on syllables, and sometimes, again, on names; and there are occasions, too, when, by means of those letters which are contained in letters, by parables not properly interpreted, or by certain [baseless] conjectures, they strive to establish that fabulous account which they have devised. [emphasis added] [Against Heresies, I, 8.1]

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; [emphasis added] [Against Heresies, II, 28.8]

So, as you can see from what Irenaeus wrote, although the Gnostics had no way to prove their beliefs were based on any writings, Christianity has its proof within the pages of Scripture; the doctrines of God are clearly explained in the New Testament. And that is exactly what Irenaeus meant by saying what the apostles “delivered.” And again, these are what he called the ‘tradition’ from the Apostles.

In another section of Against Heresies, Irenaeus proposed a hypothetical situation asking what would need to be done if the Apostles had not left us their writings,

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? [emphasis added] [Against Heresies, III, 4.1]

Irenaeus was saying that since the teachings had been given directly to a number of churches by Apostles, all one would have had to do is go back to the churches which had had direct contact with the Apostles to determine what those teachings were. The point of Irenaeus’ ‘what if’ scenario was not about instituting some unknowable ‘tradition,’ but to combat Gnosticism and its unknowable beliefs. William Webster put it this way,

But in point of fact they [the apostles] 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 an oral tradition. He is simply presenting a hypothetical situation as a way of combating the Gnostic heretics. [emphasis added] [2]

Irenaeus is making it clear that the Old and New Testament were how the ‘tradition from the Apostles’ were transmitted to his generation and any subsequent generation. It is how the Apostles’ teachings “can be verified and error refuted.” [3]

If there are, in fact, the type of ‘traditions’ promoted by Catholicism today, then was Irenaeus lying? Was he purposely misrepresenting Christianity to ‘prove’ that it was superior to Gnosticism? If Catholicism is correct, then he had to be purposely misrepresenting the truth to deceptively ‘win’ a point against Gnosticism. Is this the type of ‘Christian’ character we would want to promote? Absolutely not!

There are only two choices here: either Irenaeus was willfully lying to purposely misrepresent the Christian Gospel, or Irenaeus was telling the truth and there are no unknownable, unwritten ‘traditions’ in his time, as has been promoted by the Catholic Church.

In Against Heresies, II.28.3 and II.28.7, Irenaeus said that if the Gnostic doctrines cannot be proven by Scripture, then whatever the Gnostics say is purely speculation and ultimately cannot be known. And why? Because outside of the Apostolic era, which is when he lived, almost 100 years after the last Apostle died, any existing revelation from God was contained within the pages of Scripture since for him, revelation had ceased when the last Apostle died. So if a doctrine or teaching cannot be found in Scripture – if Scripture is silent on a matter – then there should be no speculation about that subject because no one can know what was never revealed.

And this has a direct impact on the whole point of this blog. The Catholic concept of ‘tradition’ is a ‘secret knowledge’ known only to the church leaders as to what ‘traditions’ were handed down from the Apostles since no one is allowed to know what these traditions actually are. Doesn’t this sound familiar? Remember from a previous blog, the Council of Trent refused to list what these supposed ‘revealed traditions’ were, keeping them in the realm of the unknown. They are said to exist, but they cannot be proven from Scripture or history because they are never mentioned in the pages of Scripture nor recorded by any of the early church fathers. Irenaeus would have called this ‘heresy’ since he rejected the legitimacy of speculation on things not revealed in Scripture. And, is this not what Gnosticism did by promoting a secret knowledge that only the enlightened could know?

William Webster related this about Irenaeus,

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. … According to Irenaeus, in order for tradition to be demonstrated as truly apostolic it must be documented from Scripture. [emphasis added] [4]

Is this not exactly what the Catholic Church teaches about their own ‘traditions’? Are not her ‘traditions’ immune from the proofs within Scripture? Her ‘traditions’ – whatever they actually are – are said to have been orally transmitted down from the Apostles to today, making them authoritative. Being authoritative and outside of Scripture somehow makes them co-equal in authority with Scripture. Is this not what Irenaeus wrote against? Now do you see why so many Protestants call this concept ‘gnostic’ and ‘heretical’?

As we see with the following quote, Irenaeus acknowledged that the Apostles first preached orally, but later handed down the oral preaching in written form as the Scriptures.

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. [emphasis added] [Against Heresies, III, 1.1]

He then followed up the above a little later in his writings, stating that these truths were placed into the hands of the Church so that anyone who would want to understand God’s plan of salvation (the water of life), could do so.

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. [emphasis added] [Against Heresies, III, 4.1]

This statement makes it clear that not only is the plan of salvation in Scripture (which Catholics say is incomplete), it is clearly understandable for anyone who wants to read it in the pages of Scripture.

And all of this is further confirmed by those that have studied Irenaeus in depth, like J.N.D. Kelly (1909-1997), an expert in the early church fathers and their writings, who summed all of this up nicely when he wrote,

But a careful analysis of his [Against Heresies] reveals that, while the Gnostics’ appeal to their supposed secret tradition forced him to stress the superiority of the Church’s public tradition, his real defence of orthodoxy was founded on Scripture. Indeed, tradition itself, on his view, was confirmed by Scripture, which was ‘the foundation and pillar of our faith.’ Secondly, Irenaeus admittedly suggested that a firm grasp of ‘the canon of truth’ received at baptism would prevent a man from distorting the sense of Scripture. But this ‘canon’, so far from being something distinct from Scripture, was simply a condensation of the message contained in it… The whole point of his teaching was, in fact, that Scripture and the Church’s unwritten tradition are identical in content, both being vehicles of the revelation. [emphasis added] [5]

So, Kelly saw that, according to Irenaeus, Scripture and tradition were one and the same!

We also have this from R.P.C. Hanson, the former bishop of Clogher in the Church of Ireland, who makes clear what seems to have been Irenaeus’ goal,

The whole purpose of Irenaeus, at least as we can reliably collect it from the prefaces and the endings of each of the books of [Against Heresies], was to refute the Gnostics from Scripture. [6]

And why did he want to use Scripture to refute the Gnostics? Because it was the ‘tradition from the Apostles’, and they were clear for all to understand. At least Irenaeus thought so,

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; [emphasis added] [Against Heresies, II, 27.2]

Some might say, ‘But the apostles initially taught the Gospel orally!” And you would be correct, but Irenaeus also acknowledged that they inscripturated that same Gospel,

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. [emphasis added] [Against Heresies, III, 1.1]

The phrase ‘handed down’ is the verb form of the word ‘tradition,’ so Ireaneus was saying that the apostolic teachings were ‘traditioned’, or handed down, to us via the Scriptures. He also made it abundantly clear how important the Scriptures are in the life of the church and believers, as he called them the ‘ground and pillar of our faith.’

What Catholic Apologists Say

Catholic apologists like to quote the entire passage of Against Heresies, I.10.2 (only referenced here for brevity but I encourage you to read it for yourself) and end it with this from Against Heresies, III.2.2,

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. [emphasis added] [7]

This is supposedly an example of Irenaeus’ support for their concept of ‘tradition,’ even though there is nothing in the text that overtly states that, especially when we acknowledge all of the quotes given above about what ‘tradition’ actually was to Irenaeus. Not to mention that the first part of the text Catholic apologists like to quote is in book 1 and the last part is in book 3, so splicing them together as a single quote seems a bit dubious. [8] One could creatively read it both ways, if not for all the statements in other places (like those quoted and linked above) stating that the tradition Irenaeus referred to had been inscripturated. But to get a taste of how this passage is viewed, this is from Not By Scripture Alone by Robert Sungenis,

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 or 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? Protestant apologists who cite the first quotation of Irenaeus as evidence of sola scriptura do so without understanding that Irenaeus is merely saying that the miracle of inspiration (the divine influence the apostles were under when they publicly proclaimed the gospel in the first century), stopped at a specific point in time, namely, at the death of the last apostle. 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 apostle’s oral tradition was retired, but only that the charism of inspiration had ceased. If anything, Irenaeus is assuring us that responsible and qualified men and 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. [9]

First, there is nothing in what Irenaeus said that states that these were oral ‘traditions’ as imagined by Catholicism for the last 500 yrs. Nor were these imagined ‘traditions’ meant to be handed down orally in some succession of presbyters, bishops or popes until Jesus’ return. Irenaeus simply meant that the teachings of Christ and the Apostles, the Scriptures, were entrusted to the church, to be taught to successive generations. And these truths, outlined in Against Heresies, I.10.1, had been inscriptuated by the Apostles, as Irenaeus pointed out in Against Heresies, III, 5.1. Now since the Apostles had all died and there was no ‘apostolic succession’, it was now the church’s responsibility to continue to preach and teach their inscripturated doctrines to each successive generation.

Second, the whole purpose of Against Heresies was to refute Gnosticism and anything gleaned from these books would need to be filtered through that lens. The Gnostics appealed to an unwritten body of ‘truth’ that Irenaeus said did not and could not exist, because it violated the teachings of Christ and the Apostles. Since Catholic apologists say that Irenaeus was referring to ‘traditions’ that have supposedly been orally passed down to our generation, then what ‘traditions’ were violated by the 2nd century Gnostics? Keep in mind, Irenaeus did not say a word about any of them. If Sungenis thinks Irenaeus was talking about some set of unwritten ‘traditions,’ then telling us what those were should be quite easy, right? Does it make sense that they have been hidden from everyone for 1800 yrs? I, for one, want to know what they were!

Third, if Irenaeus only used Scripture to refute the Gnostic beliefs, is it not more likely that Sungenis is reading his concept of ‘tradition’ into what Irenaeus said? We cannot lose sight of the fact that it was Scripture that Irenaeus used to refute the Gnostic heresies, hence why he pointed out the importance of Scripture before he systematically dismantled their beliefs using those same Scriptures. None of what Sungenis says makes any sense when we keep in mind that Irenaeus’ purpose was to refute the heretical beliefs of Gnosticism.

Fourth, Sungenis doesn’t seem to understand that preaching the inscripturated oral teachings was ‘preserving and perpetuating’ the message of salvation that can only be found in Christ. That is what the Church has been entrusted. And it is the ‘job’ of the Church and her believers to preach and teach this message to each successive generation. There is no need for an unknown orally preserved body of ‘truths’ that the Church is required to preserve and then keep secret from her people. And once again we are in the place of asking for that authoritative list of unknown oral traditions which supposedly date back to the Apostles, so that everyone can see and read them as proof that they actually exist. If these traditions are so important for the Gospel message to be proclaimed, then should they not be known by all?

Fifth, if you back up one paragraph in Against Heresies from I.10.2, to I.10.1, you will read what Irenaeus means by ‘tradition,’

The Church, though dispersed through [out] 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 Saviour, 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; [emphasis added] [Against Heresies, I.10.1]

This passage actually goes on a little further, and again I encourage you to read the entire linked passage. What you see here is not unwritten oral traditions but the Christian faith encapsulated in Scripture and in the creeds. So the portrayal of Sungenis in his book is simply not faithful to what Irenaeus wrote.

Sixth, to make this point even stronger than it already is, Sungenis seems to ignore what is said in Against Heresies, III, 2.1, so let me remind you what Irenaeus wrote,

When, however, they [Gnostics] 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 vivâ voce [living voice]: wherefore also Paul declared, “But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world.” [emphasis added] [Against Heresies, III, 2.1]

Irenaeus did not use anything but Scripture to refute the Gnostics. So, if there was this superior body of oral knowledge known only to the presbyters and bishops, and Irenaeus was a bishop, why didn’t he use it to refute the Gnostics? He only used Scripture. So, why would Irenaeus omit such a ‘powerful’ ‘co-equal’ body of ‘truth’? I submit, because it simply does not exist.

Conclusion

I’ve thrown out a lot of quotes from Irenaeus because I wanted him to be allowed to speak for himself, 1800 yrs after his death. I have provided quotes to support his view of Scripture and his view of what tradition actually was. And every one of these quotes are linked for everyone to read, and I encourage you to do so. I then presented the quote that a number of Catholic apologists have used to support their version of what tradition is, and then showed how that quote misrepresented the purpose of Irenaeus’ books.

Irenaeus was a man and therefore fallible. So, whatever he or any other early church father wrote must be tested against the infallible teachings of Scripture. Otherwise, we run the risk of thinking he wrote infallibly. And if you do not believe that, then what is your standard to judge his writings against? So, does what I presented above comply with that? I believe it does. Irenaeus was consistent with what he taught and wrote about. And that consistency was that the ‘tradition from the Apostles’ was the orally taught doctrines handed down to the Church as the Scriptures we have today. These are the only teachings he referred to, and they are the very same teachings he used to refute the Gnostic teachings of his day.

Irenaeus provides a window into what the early church understood ‘tradition’ to be, and this understanding is not how the Catholic Church represents it. Is it possible that Irenaeus never learned about the ‘traditions’ modern day Catholicism speaks of today? Sure, it is possible. But why would Polycarp fail to pass these oral teachings onto Irenaeus? Or maybe a better question is, why would the Apostle John fail to pass these oral teachings onto Polycarp? Obviously, both of these are highly unlikely.

Catholic apologists are, unfortunately, put into the awkward position of making excuses and assumptions about why Irenaeus was not truthful about the ‘traditions’, as understood in modern day Catholicism, in his arguments against Gnosticism, all while sounding like Gnostics themselves. Or they read their concept of tradition into what Irenaeus wrote, as we see with Sungenis.

But one thing stands out, the parallels between Gnosticism and Catholicism. As William Webster put it,

The parallels between the claims of 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 tradition, the Roman Catholic Church has embraced a Gnostic heresy repudiated by Irenaeus and the fathers in general. [10]

So, instead of assuming that the Catholic Church’s 16th century teaching on ‘tradition’ is true, we should let Scripture and history speak for themselves. There is nothing in Irenaeus’ writings that supports the modern day Catholic Church’s understanding of ‘tradition’ in the writings of Irenaeus, just like there is nothing in the Scriptures that supports it either. Irenaeus is a huge problem for Catholicism and their teachings on ‘tradition.’ He was one of the most important early church fathers, and arguably the most important in the 2nd century, and he never spoke a word about ‘tradition’ in the sense that Catholicism teaches today. And there is nothing that can be done to twist his writings into promoting a concept of an orally transmitted set of doctrines that equal the God-breathed Scriptures we have as our Bible today.

We are left asking the same question the post-Tent Protestants asked 500 yrs ago – what is the infallible list of orally taught traditions that were supposedly handed down from the Apostles, and are required to be believed even though we are not allowed to know what they are? And each time we discuss an early church father that does not conform to the modern day understanding of ‘tradition’, we are going to ask this same question. Maybe someday this question will be answered, but it’s been 500 yrs and we’re still waiting.

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.

Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons

Footnotes

1. All quotes for Against Heresies can be found in Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol 1. (See: https://ccel.org/fathers)
2. William Webster, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol II, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 25.
3. Ibid.
4. William Webster, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol II, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), pp. 23-24.
5. J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (Peabody MA: Prince Press, 1960), pp. 38-39.
6. R.P.C. Hanson, Tradition in the Early Church (Westminster: Philadelphia, 1962), p. 109, as quoted by William Webster, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol II, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 26.
7. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol 1, Irenaeus, Against Heresies, III.2.2, not properly referenced in William Webster, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol II, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 27. See also, Robert Sungenis, Not by Scripture Alone, (Santa Barbara: Queenship, 1997), pp. 268.
8. It should be noted that Robert Sungenis did NOT splice the quotes together as other Catholic apologists have done, and as depicted in Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol II.
9. Robert Sungenis, Not by Scripture Alone, (Santa Barbara: Queenship, 1997), pp. 268-269. Online PDF version. Acquired via academia.edu.
10. William Webster, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol II, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 36.

All Scriptures quotes are from the New American Standard Bible, 1995 Revision, unless otherwise noted. Verse links from Blue Letter Bible, https://www.blueletterbible.org/

For the best treatment of Sola Scriptura in book form, please consider investing in the 3 volume set of: David T. King and William Webster, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, Volume 1, Volume 2, Volume 3 (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001). It's the guide I'm using to integrate some of my own study on this important subject. This book set is inexpensive and worth every penny.