Extra-Biblical Oral Tradition Arguments Refuted:
"John 20:30 clearly tells us that the Bible lacks many things Jesus did."
False arguments that Catholics and Orthodox use to prove oral extra-scriptural church tradition are refuted.
"John 20:30 clearly tells us that the Bible lacks many things Jesus did"
"John tells us that his book only contains part of what Jesus did, therefore we need oral tradition to complete the revelation. This proves that everything Jesus and the Apostles did and taught were not recorded in the Bible."
"Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book, but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name." John 20:30-31
"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written." John 21:25
Refutation of the false Catholic & Orthodox tradition argument:"John 20:30 clearly tells us that the Bible lacks many things Jesus did"
Sola Scriptura proof texts: John 20:30 proves the Bible is enough!
- If we took all that is in the Bible and added what Catholics and Orthodox say is recorded in "oral tradition" John's statement would still be true. We would only have a small fraction of the stories while Jesus walked the earth. So the argument is self refuting. Yes, there are many stories not written in the Bible, but what is written is all we need for our faith. That's what John says in Jn 20:31.
- It is well documented that the three other gospels deal with a large number of things Jesus did, that are not found in John. Perhaps what John lacks, is in the other three gospels!
- We accept, however that there are many specific events in Jesus life that are not recorded in the New Testament, but were known from tradition because there were people alive who personally witnessed these things that never got recorded in the New Testament.
- But in case these "tradition defenders" missed it, John goes on to tell us that what is written IS SUFFICIENT. So the very passage Catholics and Orthodox leaders use to show the need for oral tradition, actually refute this and say exactly the opposite. Lets quote it again. "these have been written so that you may believe". In other words, John wrote enough, all that was necessary, for the purpose of bring about perfect faith in Jesus.
- The bold claims that oral tradition of stories of Jesus life, are self refuted when the Orthodox and Catholic leaders can't give us even one example of a genuine story no recorded in the gospels. Even if they did have an example, the important question is, "What information does it add to our faith?" For oral tradition to be of any value, it must contribute something to the pool of information we already posses about the life of Christ.
More Pro-Oral Church tradition arguments refuted!
More Anti-Sola Scriptura arguments refuted!
by Steve Rudd
Go To Start: WWW.BIBLE.CA