Certain authors of the NT cite oral Tradition to support Christian doctrine, in addition to old Testament Scripture...

[joe370]

Your thoughts non-Catholics? Certain authors of the New Testament clearly cite oral Tradition to support Christian doctrine, in addition to old Testament Scripture. In some instances, they explicitly cite oral Tradition to support Christian doctrine, which, to me anyway, seems to undermine the doctrine/practice of sola scriptura. Certainly, for the apostles, oral Tradition must have been trustworthy when formulating and developing elements of the Christian faith. Examples of Jesus and the Apostles’ reliance on oral Tradition:

Matt. 2:23 - The prophecy “He shall be a Nazarene” must be an oral tradition. It is nowhere to be found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the apostles must have relied on oral tradition, otherwise…

Matt 23:2 - Jesus relies on the oral tradition of acknowledging Moses’ seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

John 19:26; 20:2; 21:20,24 - knowing that the “beloved disciple” is John may be inferred from scripture, just as, is the case with Mary being full of grace, according to non-Catholics, but it must be explicitly derived from oral tradition.

1 Cor. 10:4 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the rock following Moses. It is not recorded in the Old Testament. Exodus 17:1-17 and Numbers. 20:2-13.

Heb. 11:37 - The author of Hebrews relies on the oral tradition of the martyrs being sawed in two. Yikes…This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

Jude 9 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of the Archangel Michael’s dispute with satan over Moses’ body. This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

Jude 14-15 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of Enoch’s prophecy which is not recorded in the Old Testament.

Ephesians - 5:14 - Paul relies on oral tradition to quote an early Christian hymn - “awake O sleeper rise from the dead and Christ shall give you light.”

Jude 14-15 - Jude speaks of the rebellious upstarts of his day, saying, “It was of these also that Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam prophesied, saying, ‘Behold, the Lord came with his holy myriads, to execute judgment on all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness which they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”

Here is a tradition, (a prophetic revelation) - which was passed on orally for millennia before being captured first in a non-inspired written document (1 Enoch) - and then in an inspired document, in the New Testament. This clearly shows that the writers of the New Testament regarded oral tradition as divine revelation.

 

[Dokimas]

Your thoughts non-Catholics? Certain authors of the New Testament clearly cite oral Tradition to support Christian doctrine, in addition to old Testament Scripture. In some instances, they explicitly cite oral Tradition to support Christian doctrine, which, to me anyway, seems to undermine the doctrine/practice of sola scriptura. Certainly, for the apostles, oral Tradition must have been trustworthy when formulating and developing elements of the Christian faith. Examples of Jesus and the Apostles’ reliance on oral Tradition:

Matt. 2:23 - The prophecy “He shall be a Nazarene” must be an oral tradition. It is nowhere to be found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the apostles must have relied on oral tradition, otherwise…

Matt 23:2 - Jesus relies on the oral tradition of acknowledging Moses’ seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

John 19:26; 20:2; 21:20,24 - knowing that the “beloved disciple” is John may be inferred from scripture, just as, is the case with Mary being full of grace, according to non-Catholics, but it must be explicitly derived from oral tradition.

1 Cor. 10:4 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the rock following Moses. It is not recorded in the Old Testament. Exodus 17:1-17 and Numbers. 20:2-13.

Heb. 11:37 - The author of Hebrews relies on the oral tradition of the martyrs being sawed in two. Yikes…This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

Jude 9 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of the Archangel Michael’s dispute with satan over Moses’ body. This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

Jude 14-15 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of Enoch’s prophecy which is not recorded in the Old Testament.

Ephesians - 5:14 - Paul relies on oral tradition to quote an early Christian hymn - “awake O sleeper rise from the dead and Christ shall give you light.”

Jude 14-15 - Jude speaks of the rebellious upstarts of his day, saying, “It was of these also that Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam prophesied, saying, ‘Behold, the Lord came with his holy myriads, to execute judgment on all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness which they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”

Here is a tradition, (a prophetic revelation) - which was passed on orally for millennia before being captured first in a non-inspired written document (1 Enoch) - and then in an inspired document, in the New Testament. This clearly shows that the writers of the New Testament regarded oral tradition as divine revelation.

Oral tradition is Scriptural as you point out. The question is which oral traditios are inspired by God and which are man’s traditions.

The one’s that can’t be supported by the Bible should be delate with carefully.

 

[elvisman]

Oral tradition is Scriptural as you point out. The question is which oral traditios are inspired by God and which are man’s traditions.

The one’s that can’t be supported by the Bible should be delate with carefully.

With that in mind, Doki, where is the contextual Scriptural support for many of the Protestant traditions like:
Sola Scriptura?
The Sinner’s Prayer?
Sola Fide?
Withholding Baptism for infants?
Soul Sleep?
Individual Interpretation of Scripture and so on?

These are ALL man-made traditions and precepts (Matt. 15:9, Mark 7:5-9).

You see - 2 Thess. 2:15 tells us explicitly:
"Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours."

In this verse, Paul puts authoritative Apostolic Tradition on par with the Scriptures - not subject to them. This all stems from the passing of Authority to the Church BY Jesus himself (Matt. 16:18-19, 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, 20:21-23)

 

[joe370]

Hey Dokimas…

Oral tradition is Scriptural as you point out. The question is which oral traditios are inspired by God and which are man’s traditions.

Good point! So many sola scriptura advocates disagree with you. To those sola scriptura advocates, it’s scripture alone, as the Christians only authority, and nothing else.

I guess we would have to determine who continues to possess that apostolic authority to cite oral tradition just as the apostles did, alongside written tradition (sacred scripture)?

Who continues to possess the apostolic authority to make the distinction between oral traditions that are inspired by God and oral traditions inspired by mere man, just as the apostles did?

The one’s that can’t be supported by the Bible should be delate with carefully.

Was that how the apostles decided which oral Traditions to embrace, in support of their Christian position? For example, did Matthew, regarding the prophecy: “He shall be a Nazarene” - defer to scripture, as the yardstick, to cite that prophesy which can be found nowhere in the OT?

 

[Dokimas]

Sola Scriptura?

Seeing how we both believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, what’s the big deal?

Sola Fide?

I don’t know what this is so I have no comment.

Withholding Baptism for infants?

I’ve never heard of one baby that asked to be baptized turned away. I see absolutely no evidence from the Bible where infants were baptized. Every time baptism is done in the NT, it’s done by desire of the one being baptized.

The Sinner’s Prayer?

You don’t think sinners should pray for forgiveness? Pray is talking to God. I think it’s wonderful that God encourages us sinners to pray. Where would I be is God didn’t want me to pray to Him? I sure don’t want to find out.

Soul Sleep?

I have no comment. You’ll have to ask someone that holds this position.

Individual Interpretation of Scripture and so on?

Again, no comment. Again, you’ll have to ask those who believe this. ARE THERE ANY NON-CATHOLICS READING THIS THAT BELIEVE IN 'INDIVIDUAL INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE’?

These are ALL man-made traditions and precepts (Matt. 15:9, Mark 7:5-9).

We don’t practice this any more than you do.

You see - 2 Thess. 2:15 tells us explicitly:
"Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours."

A wonderful verse, thank you for sharing it.

 

[SemperReformada]

With that in mind, Doki, where is the contextual Scriptural support for many of the Protestant traditions like:
Sola Scriptura?
The Sinner’s Prayer?
Sola Fide?
Withholding Baptism for infants?
Soul Sleep?
Individual Interpretation of Scripture and so on?

These are ALL man-made traditions and precepts (Matt. 15:9, Mark 7:5-9).

You see - 2 Thess. 2:15 tells us explicitly:
"Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours."

In this verse, Paul puts authoritative Apostolic Tradition on par with the Scriptures - not subject to them. This all stems from the passing of Authority to the Church BY Jesus himself (Matt. 16:18-19, 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, 20:21-23)

Elvisman,

I’m not sure if I understand your point in introducing 2Thess2:15.

From your post you seem to believe that there are what your church refers to as Apostolic Traditions that are ***not ***found in scripture and that you think that this verse shows that those Traditions (purposefully with a big T as Catholics put it) are equal to scripture.

As a starting point, do you believe that there are dogmas in your church which are not found in scripture?

 

[GreggAlvarez]

I’ve never heard of one baby that asked to be baptized turned away. I see absolutely no evidence from the Bible where infants were baptized. Every time baptism is done in the NT, it’s done by desire of the one being baptized.

At least you say that you do not see it. It is there… All the households that were being baptized… Do you think they had no infants? The faith of the head hancho of the household was enough to baptize the entire household. Your last sentence is FALSE! Jesus commanded His Apostles to baptize all nations… NOT to ask them if they want to be baptized. With that said, no household can be forced into baptism.

You can wrongly say that infant baptism is immoral because we force it. Well, we force them to eat. We force them to be cleaned and changed. We force them to visit family. We force them to be carried by other family members or friends. We force them into a lot of things that is not seen as force. All the evidence is in the Bible and reality. The two cannot contradict each other.

You don’t think sinners should pray for forgiveness? Pray is talking to God. I think it’s wonderful that God encourages us sinners to pray. Where would I be is God didn’t want me to pray to Him? I sure don’t want to find out.

Prayer is not just talking to God, although that is one of the main forms. Prayer can be seen as just asking. Hence, the saints… I know you do not see the full picture, but it is there.

Again, no comment. Again, you’ll have to ask those who believe this. ARE THERE ANY NON-CATHOLICS READING THIS THAT BELIEVE IN 'INDIVIDUAL INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE’?

Perhaps not… But they still abide by it. Your interpretations do not see infants being baptized. The reality that infants are considered in household baptism is completely biblical and more real. The fact that it does not say “this infant was baptized” is ridiculous reason for not believing it, especially when that is the ONLY reason. We might as well not believe that the Bible even exists because it never says “the Bible exists.”

In the Church, there are no contradictions with the Bible or reality. Oral Tradition helps us understand the Bible. We need help with every book we read. But when it comes to the Bible, apparently everybody can understand it by saying a prayer to the Holy Spirit to make doctrines pop out like babies. This trivializes the Holy Spirit. This is why I am Catholic. No trivializing of the Holy Spirit (Sola Scriptura) or Christ’s work (Faith Alone) allowed. Or anything else for that matter.

 

[Irish_Polock]

Seeing how we both believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, what’s the big deal?

So I would agree that the inspired Word of God, although “the big deal” is when protestants assume that the Bible teaches that “the Bible is the only truth of God” or that everything that we are supposed to believe from God is found in Scripture.

I don’t know what this is so I have no comment.

Faith alone. This is one of the five sola’s that have been the pillars of the reformation.

I’ve never heard of one baby that asked to be baptized turned away. I see absolutely no evidence from the Bible where infants were baptized. Every time baptism is done in the NT, it’s done by desire of the one being baptized.

30 and brought them out and said, “Men, what must I do to be saved?” 31 And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all that were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their wounds, and he was baptized at once, with all his family. 34 Then he brought them up into his house, and set food before them; and he rejoiced with all his household that he had believed in God. (Acts (RSV) 16)

Although faith is required for each of the sacraments, in the case of infants and children being baptized, the faith of the parent, as noted in the example of the Philippian jailer in Acts 16 and other household baptisms, suffices for the faith needed for the sacrament of Baptism.

Council of Trent: Canons on Baptism:

Canon 5: If anyone shall say that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema.

Canon 12: If anyone shall say that no one is to be baptized except at the age at which Christ was baptized, or when at the very point of death, let him be anathema.

Canon 13: If anyone shall say that infants, because they have not actual faith, after having received baptism are not to be numbered among the faithful, and therefore, when they have reached the age of discretion, are to be rebaptized, or it is better that their baptism be omitted than that they, while not believing, by their own act be baptized in the faith of the Church alone, let him be anathema.

You don’t think sinners should pray for forgiveness? Pray is talking to God. I think it’s wonderful that God encourages us sinners to pray. Where would I be is God didn’t want me to pray to Him? I sure don’t want to find out.

But the prayer is not of Scripture alone.

Again, no comment. Again, you’ll have to ask those who believe this. ARE THERE ANY NON-CATHOLICS READING THIS THAT BELIEVE IN 'INDIVIDUAL INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE’?

Protestant Pastors interpret Scripture as an individual, do they not? If a said Pastor disagrees with his ecclesiastical communities understanding of certain interpretation of whatever part of scripture that is, what might happen? As history has shown - especially in the Baptist faith here in America - the Pastor leaves the community and then attempts to start his own community, becoming independent. This is exactly why scripture prohibits “private interpretation”. (Mind you, I am aware this did not start with the Baptist, they are just a perfect example.)

20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, (2Peter (RSV) 1)

1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. (2Peter (RSV) 2)

16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.
17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability. (2Peter (RSV) 3)

 

[Irish_Polock]

Elvisman,

I’m not sure if I understand your point in introducing 2Thess2:15.

From your post you seem to believe that there are what your church refers to as Apostolic Traditions that are ***not ***found in scripture and that you think that this verse shows that those Traditions (purposefully with a big T as Catholics put it) are equal to scripture.

As a starting point, do you believe that there are dogmas in your church which are not found in scripture?

I hope you don’t mind me interjecting here; But the Church has no Dogma that would contradict Sacred Scripture. Feel free to make us aware of any that do, in your opinion.

 

[SemperReformada]

This is exactly why scripture prohibits “private interpretation”. (Mind you, I am aware this did not start with the Baptist, they are just a perfect example.)

20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, (2Peter (RSV) 1)

1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. (2Peter (RSV) 2)

16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.
17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability. (2Peter (RSV) 3)

Haven’t you just presented your private interpretation of the above passages ?

I believe this text is often mis-used by Catholics. As Ben Douglass (Catholic Apologist points out)
Ben Douglass:

Peter explains, in the preceding verses, that the Apostles did not invent their claims about the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ, but saw it first hand when He revealed it to them in the Transfiguration. He then exhorts his readers to heed the “prophetic word.” He continues, “No prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men borne by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”*** In context, the “interpretation” which St. Peter refers to is on the part of the prophet, not the reader. That is, St. Peter’s point is that no prophet made up his own prophecies. ***The prophets spoke what they received from God to speak, just as the Apostles spoke what they received from God to speak on Mount Tabor. Hence, their words rest on divine and not human authority. 2 Peter 1:20-21 perhaps admits of a legitimate secondary application against private judgment, but this will not be convincing to an astute Protestant.

 

[SemperReformada]

I hope you don’t mind me interjecting here; But the Church has no Dogma that would contradict Sacred Scripture. Feel free to make us aware of any that do, in your opinion.

I said nothing of the sort.

I simply asked if he believed all Catholic dogma is found in scripture. If he does then it doen’t seem to me to make sense to inject 2Thess2:15 into the discussion.

 

[Irish_Polock]

Haven’t you just presented your private interpretation of the above passages ?

No, not at all, here are examples of this consistent teaching.

True knowledge(4) is (that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution(5) of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body(6) of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved(7) without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system(8) of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor (suffering] curtailment (in the truths which she believes]; and (it consists in] reading (the word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy; and (above all, it consists in] the pre-eminent gift of love,(9) which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and which excels all the other gifts (of God]. (Irenaeus, against Heresies Liv.4 ch.33)

To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine. Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith. ( Tertullian, On Prescription against the Heretics, XXXII )

For heresies, and certain tenets of perversity, ensnaring souls and hurling them into the deep, have not sprung up except when good Scriptures are not rightly understood, and when that in them which is not rightly understood is rashly and boldly asserted. And so, dearly beloved, ought we very cautiously to hear those things for the understanding of which we are but little ones, and that, too, with pious heart and with trembling, as it is written, holding this rule of soundness, that we rejoice as in food in that which we have been able to understand, according to the faith with which we are imbued; and what we have not yet been able to understand, that we lay aside doubting, and defer the understanding of it for a time; that is, even if we do not yet know what it is, that still we doubt not in the least that it is good and true. And as for me, brethren, you must consider who I am that undertake to speak to you, and what I have undertaken: for I have taken upon me to treat of things divine, being a man; of spiritual things, being carnal; of things eternal, being a mortal. Also from me, dearly beloved, far be vain presumption, if my conversation would be sound in the house of God, “which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.”1 In proportion to my measure I take what I put before you: where it is opened, I see with you; where it is shut, I knock with you. (Augustin on John, 18:1)

The Catholic Church interprets in the light of sacred Tradition. How the Church designed It to be read.

But those reasons which I have here given, I have either gathered from the authority of the church, according to the tradition of our forefathers, or from the testimony of the divine Scriptures, or from the nature itself of numbers and of similitudes. No sober person will decide against reason, no Christian against the Scriptures, no peaceable person against the church. (Augustin - Trinity 410)

I believe this text is often mis-used by Catholics. As Ben Douglass (Catholic Apologist points out)

I respect Mr. Douglass as an apologist, and I agree with him. That verse would be in reference to any prophetical protestants out there.

 

[Irish_Polock]

I said nothing of the sort.

I simply asked if he believed all Catholic dogma is found in scripture. If he does then it doen’t seem to me to make sense to inject 2Thess2:15 into the discussion.

This is a straw man, and as I stated; there is no Dogma that would contradict Sacred Scripture. I am sure you know the Catholic position on the issue.

 

[SemperReformada]

This is a straw man, and as I stated; there is no Dogma that would contradict Sacred Scripture. I am sure you know the Catholic position on the issue.

I don’t have a clue what you are talking about.

What have I posted that is a straw man?

 

[Irish_Polock]

I don’t have a clue what you are talking about.

What have I posted that is a straw man?

A straw man is a fallacy, a way of arguing a watered down version of your opponent’s position. To ask if a Catholic if he believes “all Catholic dogma is found in scripture“ would be watering down our position to say the least. I could only guess where you had intended on going with it, I will admit.

As far as if you truly are ignorant of the fact, I hope you accept my apology for assuming you might know; I can also try to briefly explain.

The Church teaches Sacred Tradition plays an indispensable and vital role in the life of the Church. Paul has given us a strict command in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 to hold on to both the oral and written teaching he gave us. The written is preserved in Scripture, the oral is preserved in the prayers and liturgy of the Church and the writings of the Fathers in unanimity. The preservation of both the oral and written teachings is guided by the Holy Spirit (1 Timothy 2:13-14)

+2Th 2,15. “So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by Epistle of ours.”

Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther. Here he shows that there were many who were shaken. (Chrysostom Th 1502)

Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.(6)

1. cf. Council of Trent, session IV, loc. cit.: (DS 1501) (783). (DEI VERBUM 9)

 

[elvisman]

Seeing how we both believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, what’s the big deal?

Yes, it certainly IS the inspired WRITTEN word of God.
Nowhere, though, does the Bible say that the Bible alone is our sole authority.

I’ve never heard of one baby that asked to be baptized turned away. I see absolutely no evidence from the Bible where infants were baptized. Every time baptism is done in the NT, it’s done by desire of the one being baptized.

And I never said that it was explicitly mentioned in Scripture. It is, however, implicitly taught as entire households were being baptized together.

Remember - this is a thread about ORAL Tradition and this particular one was taught - and practiced - by the Early Church

You don’t think sinners should pray for forgiveness? Pray is talking to God. I think it’s wonderful that God encourages us sinners to pray. Where would I be is God didn’t want me to pray to Him? I sure don’t want to find out.

There is a formulaic “Sinner’s Prayer” that is recited by many OProtestant groups, which they claimmust be recited in order to be “saved”.
**You’re simply feigning ignorance about it because your particular sect may not hold to this.

I have no comment. You’ll have to ask someone that holds this position.
**And that’s precisely **my point. In Protestantism (*which ever flavor you espouse) *- the truth is up for grabs.
Again, no comment. Again, you’ll have to ask those who believe this. ARE THERE ANY NON-CATHOLICS READING THIS THAT BELIEVE IN 'INDIVIDUAL INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE’?

**Again - you’re simply feigning ignorance because your denomination my not teach this. ther are MANY, however, that do. Just do a search on this forum about individual interpretation and your get a plethora of various Protestant teachings on this very subject.

We don’t practice this any more than you do.

You absolutely do.
Protestantism was built on the traditions and precepts of men.

A wonderful verse, thank you for sharing it.

Thess. 2:15 is not only a wonderful verse - it is one you should heed.
I do get a chuckle out of the various ways you tend to dance around the difficult ones . . .

 

[Bluegoat]

Well, I don’t particularly support SS. But you can’t assume that just because the Jews, or even the first Christians used oral tradition, that post-scriptural Christians are meant to. Jews or early Christians did not use the NT at all, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t!

 

[elvisman]

Elvisman,

I’m not sure if I understand your point in introducing 2Thess2:15.

From your post you seem to believe that there are what your church refers to as Apostolic Traditions that are ***not ***found in scripture and that you think that this verse shows that those Traditions (purposefully with a big T as Catholics put it) are equal to scripture.

As a starting point, do you believe that there are dogmas in your church which are not found in scripture?

*First of all, I brought up 2 Thess. 2:15 to illustrate the fact that Sacred Tradition is on par *with Sacred Scripture. The collection of Books that make up the NT itself is a Sacred Tradition. There was no written formula for determining the canon of Scripture – ergo, it was Sacred Tradition, guided by the Holy Spirit that determined this canon – NOT Scripture itself.

**As for whether or both there are doctrines or dogmas that are not explicitly taught in Scripture, I believe I already answered that question in my response to Dokimas. **
Indeed there are. I used Infant Baptism as a perfect example of this.
Whereas ALL Catholic teachings are harmonious with Scripture - not all are explicitly taught in Scripture.

**By contrast - there are Protestant doctrines that are neither mentioned in nor harmonious with Scripture. Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide are a 2 perfect examples of this.

 

[elvisman]

Well, I don’t particularly support SS. But you can’t assume that just because the Jews, or even the first Christians used oral tradition, that post-scriptural Christians are meant to. Jews or early Christians did not use the NT at all, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t!

The problem I see with your statement is that it is rejected by Scripture itself (2 Thess. 2:15).

 

[joe370]

SemperReformada, your thoughts regarding the OP?

Certain authors of the New Testament clearly cite oral Tradition to support Christian doctrine, in addition to old Testament Scripture. In some instances, they explicitly cite oral Tradition to support Christian doctrine, which, to me anyway, seems to undermine the doctrine/practice of sola scriptura. Certainly, for the apostles, oral Tradition must have been trustworthy when formulating and developing elements of the Christian faith. Examples of Jesus and the Apostles’ reliance on oral Tradition:

Matt. 2:23 - The prophecy “He shall be a Nazarene” must be an oral tradition. It is nowhere to be found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the apostles must have relied on oral tradition, otherwise…

Matt 23:2 - Jesus relies on the oral tradition of acknowledging Moses’ seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

John 19:26; 20:2; 21:20,24 - knowing that the “beloved disciple” is John may be inferred from scripture, just as, is the case with Mary being full of grace, according to non-Catholics, but it must be explicitly derived from oral tradition.

1 Cor. 10:4 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the rock following Moses. It is not recorded in the Old Testament. Exodus 17:1-17 and Numbers. 20:2-13.

Heb. 11:37 - The author of Hebrews relies on the oral tradition of the martyrs being sawed in two. Yikes…This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

Jude 9 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of the Archangel Michael’s dispute with satan over Moses’ body. This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

Jude 14-15 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of Enoch’s prophecy which is not recorded in the Old Testament.

Ephesians - 5:14 - Paul relies on oral tradition to quote an early Christian hymn - “awake O sleeper rise from the dead and Christ shall give you light.”

Jude 14-15 - Jude speaks of the rebellious upstarts of his day, saying, “It was of these also that Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam prophesied, saying, ‘Behold, the Lord came with his holy myriads, to execute judgment on all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness which they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”

Here is a tradition, (a prophetic revelation) - which was passed on orally for millennia before being captured first in a non-inspired written document (1 Enoch) - and then in an inspired document, in the New Testament. This clearly shows that the writers of the New Testament regarded oral tradition as divine revelation.