Hello Mickey!
Thanks for posting that. The article goes right to the issue I wanted to address. This is going to take a little space to respond to, so I hope that everyone will not think that I am trying to monopolize the boards here.
First of all, I think the author is making an equivocation on the word “tradition” in the scripture passages he presents. The Greek term paradosis simply means “that which is handed down.” BDAG defines it as “the content of instruction that has been handed down” and Louw and Nida defines it as the “content of traditional instruction.” Hence, then, passages such as 1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 3:6, and 2 Timothy 2:2 are only saying that we are to hold to the teachings which were delivered to each of those individual groups. With regards to 2 Thessalonians 2:15, all this is saying is that the church at Thessolonika received these traditions in two ways: by epistle and word of mouth. This proves only that the word of God was handed down orally at a point in time. No one denies that. The real question is if these traditions passed down orally are, today, extrascriptural or if they are contained in the scriptures themselves. Of course, the text is silent on that issue, and hence, this text cannot be used to support this idea.
Now, I have ran into the material before from the patristic writers. Let me first of all say that we all believe in an apostolic tradition, that is, teachings from the apostles which were handed down. The question is if there are any of those traditions that are extrascriptural. I think that may have been partially my fault.
From what I can gather about the patristic writers, there are at least two usages of the term “tradition.” The first is use is to use it interchangibly with the term “doctrine.” For instance, John 1:1 would be the scripture and “the diety of Christ” would be the tradition just as an example. Let me give some examples from the article:
“At that time [A.D. 150] there flourished in the Church Hegesippus, whom we know from what has gone before, and Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, and another bishop, Pinytus of Crete, and besides these, Philip, and Apollinarius, and Melito, and Musanus, and Modestus, and, finally, Irenaeus. From them has come down to us in writing, the sound and orthodox faith received from tradition” (*Church History *4:21).
He then goes on to talk about these traditions:
His words are as follows: “And the church of Corinth continued in the true faith until Primus
1228
was bishop in Corinth. I conversed with them on my way to Rome, and abode with the Corinthians many days, during which
we were mutually refreshed in the true doctrine. And when I had come to Rome I remained there until Anicetus,
1229 whose deacon was
199Eleutherus. And Anicetus was succeeded by Soter, and he by Eleutherus. In every succession, and in every city that is held
which is preached by the law and the prophets and the Lord.” [Church History 4:22:2-3]
Obviously, then, Eusebius was not trying to refer to some extrascriptural tradition, but rather, that which is sound doctrine and that which is preached by the prophets and the lord. That is very consistent with the definition I posted above. The same holds true for Irenaeus as well:
…For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same" (*Against Heresies *
1:10:2 [A.D. 189]).
However, look at what Irenaeus means when he speaks about tradition:
[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(6) 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… [Against Heresies 1:10:1]
Continued