Is the Apostle John a Heretic?

Your view would hold water if this was the 'traditions of men'. But it isn't

But not the complete Word (by evangelical definition ie: the Bible) since the NT did not exist; not one of its 27 books had been written at that point, so 'Word of God' there cannot mean the NT.

Yes. And? Did they preach from the written NT? No! It hadn't been written. So they must have been preaching from something other than the NT.

How can you be so blind?! It's there! You yourself said that Paul "taught the Word". Now, what do you mean by that term? You surely can't mean the NT, because although that was by then partly written, it was not complete. As we were discussing in the thread on the Word of God, it must mean Scripture plus something else, and that something else is Apostolic Tradition - that which is 'handed down '- of which you have a very plain example in the verse you just quoted: Paul hands something down to Timothy who is enjoined to hand the same thing on. What's he handing on? Not the Scriptures - they're not complete yet, and if Oaul had meant the Scriptures he would have said so. He's asking Timothy to hand down what he's heard, not what's been written.

Again, I ask you to define that term in the light of the fact that the Scriptures were not yet complete still yet canonised.

But we're not talking about that - we're talking about Apostolic Tradition, the teaching of the Apostles, handed down - all of which is referenced in those Scriptures you've quoted.

 

Matt and Thinkingstuff,
Let's not be naive, as I think you are both being. Compare the age of the early Christians to the time that William Carey, founder of modern missionary movement, went to India in the last decade of the 18th century and most of the first half of the 19th century.

While he was there he translated the Bible into seven different languages.
But his accomplishments didn't stop there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Carey_(missionary)


If the entire Bible was printed in seven different languages then in 37 other languages they either had the entire NT, or some of the books of the NT. Either way there were 44 ethnic groups of India that had the Word of God. It did not matter if it was all 66 books. They still had the Word of God, were able to understand the gospel, preach the gospel, teach the gospel, spread the gospel, all just like the NT churches were able to do. Your arguments above are quite fruitless. Just because a group of people are missing some of the books of the Bible, does not mean they don't have the Word of God. Many today don't have the entire Bible translated into their language, but they still have "the Word of God." Some, today, only have John and Romans. Do we say that they don't have God's Word? No. They don't have the entire Bible, but they do have the Word of God. Read the Bible carefully.


Acts 8:4 Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word.--Nowhere does it say that they went abroad preaching a canon of 66 books of the Bible. It says that they went preaching the Word. Take the Bible at face value. Don't read into it any more than what it says.

 

Why do you bear false witness?
I said no such thing. You won't find the word "tradition" in my quote at all. Please quote where I said tradition. Why is it that those who claim to be Christians deliberately misrepresent others? I will never understand it. I continue to say that tradition never played a role. They preached the Word, not tradition.
Either quote me accurately or retract what you said.

 

Which means.... No it does not mean that at all.
If you want further clarification of what I said, then ask.
Don't read my mind. I said what I said. I know what I said, and if you can't understand the English that I wrote maybe I should try another language. Don't read into what I said. I did not say what you "think I meant," or unwisely concluded. Ask for clarification if you need it.

Otherwise you have falsely misrepresented me.

 

This is not a conclusion, especially when the Bible says that, that is not what they did. They went everywhere preaching the word--full stop.
The only thing that was passed on in those churches that remained true to God's Word, was the teaching of the Word of God, and that is not tradition. We have the preaching of the Word of God every Sunday and Wednesday, and sometimes at other times as well. Just because it is preached orally does not put it in the realm of tradition. Where does such a silly idea like that come from? It is still the Word of God being communicated. It is the preaching of the Word of God as commanded by Christ. It has nothing to do with tradition.

The canon was established at the end of the first century when John finished the Book of Revelation. It was established by the Holy Spirit, recognized by the Apostles, and taught to early believers. Let me emphasize: It did not need the stamp of the RCC to become the Bible.
Liturgical worship was a by-product of error slipping into the churches at that time. See my previous posts about the ECF's doctrinal errors. The early church did not have liturgical worship. That is obvious from a simple study of the book of Acts.

 

To believe other than what I have presented is to believe the revisionist history of the RCC and their brainwashing down throughout the centuries. They have done a good job haven't they? They have even convinced you.
Are you so naive as to believe that the 12 Apostles who walked and talked with Jesus Himself did not know which books were Scripture (inspired) and which were not, even though Christ promised them that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth? This is truly amazing! You think the Apostles themselves were ignorant. Well join with the Pharisees; they thought the same thing.

You can believe that "myth" if you like. I prefer to believe actual Scriptural evidence that points to the fact that the Apostles knew which writings were Scripture.

2 Peter 3:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
--Peter commands his readers to remember the words, not only of the prophets of the OT, but of the Apostles of the NT, which were the writers of the NT Scripture. Those were the things that they were to remember.

Read on:
2 Peter 3:15-16 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
--Peter recognized the writings of Paul as Scripture, and he knew which writings of Paul were Scripture and which were not.

So? I gave you the example of William Carey. Did you not understand my example? He translated the Bible (66 books) into 7 different languages, but he translated only parts of the Bible into 37 other languages. Does that mean that those 37 other ethnic groups did not have the Word of God. No it does not. They may not have had the entire Word of God--all 66 books, but that doesn't matter. Even today there are nations that don't have the entire Bible translated into their language. Your point is moot.

Authoritative or inspired? There is a difference. I have many books which I believe to be authoritative. Strong's concordance is an authoritative book, as is Thayer's Lexicon. But they don't replace the Bible. Early Christians knew which was inspired Scripture, and which was not.

I don't know who Dan Brown is, but I know that the RCC has done a good job of deceiving many. I suppose you believe that Peter was the pope at Rome for 25 years as well.

Etymology does not determine meaning. If it did, on the first day of the week we should be worshiping the sun, and on the fifth day of the week we should worship the god of Thor, and on the last day of the week we should worship the god of Saturn. A hamburger is neither made of ham nor is it a "burger," (a formally defined class of medieval Germany--burgher) if you want to look at etymologies.

The disciples left their Judaism behind. Christianity was a new religion, not rehashed Judaism as so many think. The very fact that the early church did not have instruments whereas the OT did should speak volumes of how much change they went through. The OT had an elaborate Temple; in the NT the body was the temple. The OT had synagogues. The NT had houses to meet in, or the catacombs (graveyards) or open fields, just wherever they could. It was not a carry over. It was new, different, radically different.
If liturgy was introduced it was probably introduced at the time of Constantine with all the other idols and paganization of Chrisitianity.
What is "reasonable" to think, is what is found in the NT, in the book of Acts, where we see believers gathering around the Word of God in simple fashion.

The false accusation of hate should be deleted, shouldn't it. Can you read the heart?
Perhaps I have studied history with better sources and from a more accurate perspective than you have.

They were not united in faith in the first three centuries. You are far from the truth.

 

Thank you for demonstrating my point: that the Word of God does not equal the entirety of Scripture or even Scripture alone; you've demonstrated the principle that the Word of God equals Scripture plus Apostolic oral preaching and teaching. Thank you. I rest my case.

 

Wow...just...wow! (Thinkingstuff has answered the rest.)

 

Not Thinkingstuff, but no-one has 'convinced' me. Only the evidence, which you deny, has convinced me. On the contrary, it is your view which is the 'Trail of Blood'-style, Carroll-ist revisionist mythological one which denies the plain facts, even when they are set out in the very words of Scripture from which you quote. I really don't understand why this is so difficult for you to understand?

 

Since much of the early Church was Jewish, they started off in the synagogues, and followed many of its practices including the sabbaths (which the sabbathkeepers here had always argued). But the rift grew, and the Churches were kicked out of the synagogues, all of that stopped, and the Church did not continue all of that stuff (the biggest evidences being the sabbaths). It was even considered "old wineskins".

No, the liturgy didn't all start with Constantine. It was gradually reintroduced, and had nothing to do with the synagogues.

 

True, many things were gradually introduced. I explained that in a previous post. However, by the time of Constantine, when the Christianity was made a state-church, the liturgy was complete or full-blown. It didn't all of a sudden exist as the others are implying. It is the same with RCC. We know that the Assumption of Mary for example, wasn't even made an official doctrine until 1950.

 

Your case is only rested in a complete lack of understanding of the transmission of Scripture. Even when examples are given you throw them out the window. How pitiful!

 

Please read carefully:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1376498&postcount=24

and

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1376499&postcount=25

 

Great article!
And this right here would answer the question "why no one opposed the error coming in". Who would be able to? John was the last Apostle, and he was banished to Patmos. Polycarp was a disciple of his, and he still seems to be in line with the NT. Ignatius' link to John seems to be speculated by Eusebius with uncertainty (a "tradition" also says he was one of the "children" blessed by Jesus). Even so, Ignatius wrote well after John, so John is no longer in the picture.
He did write a letter to Polycarp (which is easily available), and in 2:9-12, he does repeatedly urge "hearken to the bishop", but that by itself does not sound like anything to oppose. It was so subtle, and not easily picked up in just one letter. Only when you see the whole overall trend, (including the overemphasis of the bishop in all of his letters together) does the shift become clear. So Polycarp would not have anything to oppose (and there was no TV or even print media to carry every word a person teaches). Though Polycarp would have a dispute with Rome, which the "apostolic sucessionists" here always brush aside.

Then when you look at what Clement did (I never even caught onto that one!), he's appealing to the Old Testament "order", and since that was the "scripture" of the church (before the NT was widespread), who would be able to quesion that? Once the all authoritative "clergy" system was on place, they had complete control over the floc, and spread there ideas far and wide, quickly. So by the time you get to Vincent with his three "criteria", you're already way out in left field!

Well, this is exactly what we see transpiring in this period.

So I also ask, regarding the so-called "oral tradition", we have focused on baptism and communion, but what about this other stuff? Is all of this power conferred on the bishops another one of those "traditions" the apostles passed down orally only, but never happened to write? And what about what Agnus quoted on that new Easter thread. The EOC deliberately avoids holding Pascha on the same day as the Jews whenever they coincide (Anti-semitism prevalent in postapostolic centuries. So much for taking the liturgy from the synagogues!)
Is that stuff really that "pattern" or "Deposit of faith" "handed down" they "heard", Paul was referring to? And why did they never write all of this, but Ignatius and later did, and with increasing emphasis? Looks more like a development to me (according to Occam's Razor--simplest plausible explanation of the facts).
Since the book of Revelation had many more years before being writen we must assume that the doctrine of our future resurection was orally passed on by Paul to at least Timothy. And so we come to Pauls discussion of the scriptures themselves and he says: but he wasn't speaking about the NT and as I've mentioned before there is question as to what he meant by ALL scriptures with regard to the qumran find and the LXX. But at least this Paul could not have been speaking of the NT but the OT and at least the Tanakh.

While the notion of various sects representing a "proto-baptist" church might not be true, the fact that we still have the Word ofGod, and hence a body of believer in Christ shows that this promise was kept, and it did not rest in an organization of controlling leaders!