A 2 Thessalonians 2:15 argument

[Cruxis117]

I was making the argument with regards to the above verse to a Protestant, and another responded by asking what those particular traditions were. I then, after a while, noted five:

1. The Canon
2. The Hypostatic Union
3. The Theotokos
4. Dyophysitism
5. Dythelitism

He then said that these weren’t fully defined (he said they didn’t even exist then), and because of that they cannot be the traditions noted. I argued that there were portions of the canon in the time of St. Paul, and thus we can extrapolate the canon as being a part of these traditions passed down. I also argued that the Holy Spirit led the Christians and the NT writers, and so we can assume that what traditions that were defined by the Church are the ones that Scripture referenced, even if they were only in a ‘seed’ stage. We never got to the other four particular ‘traditions’.

So, I have two questions with regards to all of this:

1. What do you think of my argument (such as anything to improve it, or whether you disagree with it and thus agree with the Protestant)?
2. What traditions do you think are being mentioned by St. Paul?

 

[DavidFilmer]

The Canon is probably his strongest example. After all, some of the Bible was not written until sometime around 90 to 110 AD. No Christian before that time could have possibly known the full Canon - it had not been written yet. This is, like, two generations after the Resurrection.

When we say that a teaching is Sacred Tradition, does that mean it must necessarily extend back to Apostolic times, or can it mean that it became Tradition when it became possible for it to do so?

One could argue that the various books of the Canon have always been revered by Christians - although there was not unanimous consensus (which is true for many Traditions). Other writings were similarly revered (the best example being the Shepherd of Hermas), but were not included in the final Canon. So why was Revelation included, and not the Shepherd? I would argue that the Holy Spirit made that decision.

Some Catholics make the mistake of extending the flawed doctrine of Sola Scriptura to include the writings of the Early Fathers - they think that any doctrine of the Church must be found in the writings of Scripture OR the Early Fathers. The Church can teach perfectly well with neither. Had all these writings been destroyed by pagan Rome, the Church would be quite OK.

 

[ErricFiggy]

Hello brother

I asked a question similar to yours once. I believe I was told that we * don’t know* what those particular Traditions(capital T) but we do know that they lie in the Deposit of Faith, or in other words the entire collection of Traditions. Someone PLEASE correct me if I’m wrong

Traditions= Unwritten teachings of Jesus and the Apostles.

 

[MarcoPolo]

what those particular traditions were.

I don’t think that text explicitly tells us. It does tell us that Tradition exists. In my study of the subject, we should not think of Tradition as exclusively an “oral” teaching, i.e. that it was something spoken but could have just as well been written. It could be that, but not necessarily exclusively that. For example, the Council of Trent refers to “unwritten traditions” (session 4), and Vatican II (Dei Verbum 7) refers to “oral preaching, by example, and by observances.” These texts call to my mind this verse from Paul:*Follow the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.” (2 Tim 1:13-14)*I think here Paul is giving Timothy a pattern, he has shown Timothy how to interpret, the theology of his “sound words.” And he references the gift of the Spirit within Timothy, a bishop. This is really a seed for the development of doctrine, for Paul did not give Timothy a static “list”—like here are the dogmas and that’s it! He rather teaches Timothy how to follow his “pattern” (or form in some translations).

Another example of Tradition by way of either oral tradition or tradition by example can be seen in this text:***The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants.**The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Origen, Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).*So that is an example of Tradition taught more explicitly by the Apostles. So you have that kind of Tradition, and you also have the kind that can develop from the single deposit by the Spirit’s guidance, such as the Canon of Scripture or Theotokos, as you point out.

 

[po18guy]

The content may very well have been the entire Gospel message, if we read the prologue to Luke (Luke 1:1-4). It clearly states that Theophilus learned nothing new from Luke’s Gospel. The Gospel was written only to confirm the oral Apostolic teachings that Theophilus had already learned.

As a counterpoint, there are many verses that state the incompleteness of scripture (i.e. Luke 3:18, John 20:30, John 21:25, Acts 2:40, 1 Corinthians 11:34, Ephesians 6:19-21, Colossians 4:7 etc.). Jesus said that “Man lives on every word that flows from the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4 quoting Deuteronomy 8:3), yet the bible tells us that it does not contain every word of God.” Now what? Do we make things up?

 

[Julia_Mae]

I was making the argument with regards to the above verse to a Protestant, and another responded by asking what those particular traditions were.

At the time it was written the Eucharist and it’s reception would have been a Tradition, changing the food laws, allowing Gentiles into the faith without circumcision. The “we don’t know” is the best answer.

But the point is that all things of Truth don’t come from writings, which is what we need to embrace from the passage, IMO. The NT Canons actually are the Traditions he speaks of, written down, so now they become part of the body of writings inspired by God as well as Traditions.

 

[Rudy_Baga]

As a counterpoint, there are many verses that state the incompleteness of scripture (i.e. Luke 3:18, John 20:30, John 21:25, Acts 2:40, 1 Corinthians 11:34, Ephesians 6:19-21, Colossians 4:7 etc.). Jesus said that “Man lives on every word that flows from the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4 quoting Deuteronomy 8:3), yet the bible tells us that it does not contain every word of God.” Now what? Do we make things up?

Flows signifies activity and nothing can be static and active at the same time. So the word of God is active today and always as a Living Word that continues to communicate with the children of God in and through His church. If we believe that God if infinitely beyond man and his ability to understand the completeness of God, why would one assume that God has said all He had to say (or can say) up until the time of the compilation of the Holy Bible. If God did not cease to be a living God at that time, then we must assume that he is able to (and does) continue to communicate His desire for, and the methods of, the salvation of man.

 

[fred_conty]

I was making the argument with regards to the above verse to a Protestant, and another responded by asking what those particular traditions were. I then, after a while, noted five:

1. The Canon
2. The Hypostatic Union
3. The Theotokos
4. Dyophysitism
5. Dythelitism

He then said that these weren’t fully defined (he said they didn’t even exist then), and because of that they cannot be the traditions noted. I argued that there were portions of the canon in the time of St. Paul, and thus we can extrapolate the canon as being a part of these traditions passed down. I also argued that the Holy Spirit led the Christians and the NT writers, and so we can assume that what traditions that were defined by the Church are the ones that Scripture referenced, even if they were only in a ‘seed’ stage. We never got to the other four particular ‘traditions’.

So, I have two questions with regards to all of this:

1. What do you think of my argument (such as anything to improve it, or whether you disagree with it and thus agree with the Protestant)?
2. What traditions do you think are being mentioned by St. Paul?

Before Jesus ascended to his Father, he told his disciples that he would send them the Holy Spirit who would teach them all things. This would imply that they did not know the fullness of his teaching, or the depth of the teachings that he left them, but nothing new.

They didn’t need to know everything at one time when he left them but only those things that would answer their immediate needs at that time. Later, as the teaching ran up against more problems, then it was that they invoked the Holy Spirit to guide them in their answers which were drawn from the roots or tradition of their faith and expanded more fully.

The Trinity, as we know, was not defined until about the 3rd or 4th century even tho the early christianity believed in the Trinity all along. But at that period in time, questions about the personage of God, in himself and in Jesus, require a more deeper analysis and definition so that an inerrant understanding would preclude false doctrine.

Everything that was revealed has been revealed completely but not fully expounded and is usually done to overcome misunderstandings of the true faith. Until that time when deeper and more profound explainations are needed, the faith is waiting to be developed with the aid of the Holy Spirit who Jesus said would teach us all things.

Just a thought.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Before Jesus ascended to his Father, he told his disciples that he would send them the Holy Spirit who would teach them all things. This would imply that they did not know the fullness of his teaching, or the depth of the teachings that he left them, but nothing new…

I don’t know why you think this implies nothing new. It was a new thing when the dream came that showed that Christians could eat all things and weren’t bound by the Jewish food laws, for instance. But I think it is a personal thing, The Advocate is there for each so that discernment can happen.

 

[fred_conty]

I don’t know why you think this implies nothing new. It was a new thing when the dream came that showed that Christians could eat all things and weren’t bound by the Jewish food laws, for instance. But I think it is a personal thing, The Advocate is there for each so that discernment can happen.

Mk 7;20 “Thus he delcared all foods clean.”

The apostles were present when Jesus defined this. Peter’s vision happened after this, is just reaffirming this. It really wasn’t new. It was a reminder.

Just a thought.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Just to clarify, in case this is pertinent - Peter’s dream in Acts 10 about foods being clean/unclean ties directly into the Jews/Gentiles. Gentiles were once outside the “chosen people” so to speak. They once represented foods unclean. Then, Christ declared foods clean, corresponding to the Gentiles being welcomed into the Church without being Jews. Some exerpts:*Acts 10:14-15,17,28 But Peter said, “No, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has cleansed, you must not call common.” … Now while Peter was inwardly perplexed as to what the vision which he had seen might mean… [Peter] said to them, "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit any one of another nation; but God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean. *Peter drew from the revelation regarding food that God was teaching him about the cleanliness of human beings. This ties right into Acts 15 when Peter is first to speak, and eventually the council determines that circumcision is not needed to go into the Church because, as Peter learned in the meaning of his “clean foods” vision, that Gentiles were welcome without needing a circumcision rite.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Mk 7;20 “Thus he delcared all foods clean.”

The apostles were present when Jesus defined this. Peter’s vision happened after this, is just reaffirming this. It really wasn’t new. It was a reminder.

Just a thought.

(Thus he declared all foods clean.)

This was said by the sacred writer and written at least a decade, likely more, after Peter’s dream. If the disciples had recognized this as Jesus declaring it legal for them to eat all foods, Peter would not have had to have the dream and then tell everyone about it.

As Marco Polo pointed out, it was actually about bringing Gentiles into the church, something I thought went without saying. Both of these things are “new.”