Cornerstone of our Catholic Faith: 2 Thess 2:15

[Crumpy]

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 teaches that all revelation is not in the Bible (his letter, for example) but it includes traditions (teachings) that have been given verbally. In practical terms, not all Christian faith has been captured in New Testament writings.

This seems to refute the stance of sola scriptura, “Bible alone” Christians who anathamize Catholics for adherence to tradition.

It’s just a pure guess why Paul would write such a thing. What was the question he was addressing?

The first thing that comes to mind is that in Judaism, there was a distinction between the written Torah (given by God) and the oral Torah (Moses). Jews accepted both equally. This is not to say that Paul is imposing the Torah on new Christians. It’s just that now in the Christian faith, that something similar applies particularly in Biblical times.

This verse stands out as a Biblical command to accept sacred tradition – in other words – Roman Catholicism.

 

[De_Maria]

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 teaches that all revelation is not in the Bible (his letter, for example) but it includes traditions (teachings) that have been given verbally. In practical terms, not all Christian faith has been captured in New Testament writings.

I would agree.

In a sense, all Christian doctrine is in the Bible either explcitly taught or implied. However, the nuances of the doctrines are explained in more detail, in Tradition. Take for instance, the Holy Trinity. It is barely mentioned in Scripture. But it is even given an name in Tradition.

This seems to refute the stance of sola scriptura, “Bible alone” Christians who anathamize Catholics for adherence to tradition.

It does. Especially because many of those Bible alone Christians color all tradition as bad. Whereas, it is clear, in Scripture, that only those traditions which contradict God’s teachings are bad.

It’s just a pure guess why Paul would write such a thing. What was the question he was addressing?

I don’t know.

The first thing that comes to mind is that in Judaism, there was a distinction between the written Torah (given by God) and the oral Torah (Moses). Jews accepted both equally. This is not to say that Paul is imposing the Torah on new Christians. It’s just that now in the Christian faith, that something similar applies particularly in Biblical times.

Perhaps this is true. It has been understood for many centuries, even before Christ, that writing is not as effectual as speaking. Plato wrote about the dilemma in 400 bc. And the problem persists to this day. People don’t write books in order to stop teaching about the subject matter. They write books and continue to explain their writings in words. That is why we have schools and universities. Where would they be without teachers?

Why then, would the Church write the Bible and then stop preaching and passing down the Traditions by word? It doesn’t make sense.

This verse stands out as a Biblical command to accept sacred tradition – in other words – Roman Catholicism.

Agreed.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I don’t recall Jesus telling anyone to write or read Scripture. His order was

15 And he said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.” 19 So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God. 20 And they went forth and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by the signs that attended it. Amen. *

Mark 19:15-20 I would suggest that Scripture was written as lecture notes to help one organize ones preaching.

Note that the Ethiopian was not converted by the Scripture he couldn’t understand, but by exposition of it.

30 So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” 31 And he said, “How can I, unless some one guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

Acts 8:30-31

 

[glass2012]

Customers can get access to an extensive assortment of stunning snapback hats on sale for the groom, bride, Groomsmen, Bridesmaids, Mother-of-Groom, Mother-of-Bride and children that are very remarkable and good-looking to offer them the ideal appearance and the self-confidence they require on the marriage. Snapbacks for sale are manufactured from best fabrics and trimmings to provide that stunning look.

 

[Crumpy]

What’s interesting to me is that I sent this to a relative who is an evangelical, and, (worse) is married to an ordained evangelical preacher. Maybe I’m misspeaking about ‘ordained,’ the man has a doctorate from his seminary school.

My cousin was hurling Rev 22:18-19 at me, apparently with the idea that it wipes out “tradition” as being an addition to scripture.

I turned that verse against my cousin saying that she didn’t have the right to ignore the verse in 2 Thess 2:15.

No surprise that I haven’t heard back from her. I suppose it’s silly to expect a reply from somebody as hard core as this.

 

[rfournier103]

What’s interesting to me is that I sent this to a relative who is an evangelical, and, (worse) is married to an ordained evangelical preacher. Maybe I’m misspeaking about ‘ordained,’ the man has a doctorate from his seminary school.

My cousin was hurling Rev 22:18-19 at me, apparently with the idea that it wipes out “tradition” as being an addition to scripture.

I turned that verse against my cousin saying that she didn’t have the right to ignore the verse in 2 Thess 2:15.

No surprise that I haven’t heard back from her. I suppose it’s silly to expect a reply from somebody as hard core as this.

Maybe she’s trying to find a really great comeback and is just having a hard time locating one. It happens…

 

[in_servitude]

Paul’s words are key, to be certain. Add John’s words to that:

2John 12

12 Although I have much to write to you, I do not intend to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and to speak face to face so that our joy may be complete.

3John 13-14

13 I have much to write to you, but I do not wish to write with pen and ink. 14 Instead, I hope to see you soon, when we can talk face to face.

My family had a reunion of sorts this past week. My parents aren’t overtly hostile to the Catholic Church, but they are not fans of it either. We (my wife/kids) went to the local Catholic Church for daily mass and did the Saturday evening vigil. For Sunday, we attended their church (Presbyterian). The service was dedicated to sending off the seniors in their youth group. As a parting gift, the seniors were given hymnals with their names on them. The pastor said, “These hymnals are a companion to the bible. They express the theology of the church.” The fact is, every church has tradition. However, the Catholic Church has tradition that comes from the visible leadership installed by Christ (and is thus Sacred Tradition).

I made the comment to my dad that it seems his church also has traditions. He said that the analogy was flawed since the hymnal is just scripture in song form.

 

[hockeyfan]

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 teaches that all revelation is not in the Bible (his letter, for example) but it includes traditions (teachings) that have been given verbally. In practical terms, not all Christian faith has been captured in New Testament writings.

This seems to refute the stance of sola scriptura, “Bible alone” Christians who anathamize Catholics for adherence to tradition.

It’s just a pure guess why Paul would write such a thing. What was the question he was addressing?

The first thing that comes to mind is that in Judaism, there was a distinction between the written Torah (given by God) and the oral Torah (Moses). Jews accepted both equally. This is not to say that Paul is imposing the Torah on new Christians. It’s just that now in the Christian faith, that something similar applies particularly in Biblical times.

This verse stands out as a Biblical command to accept sacred tradition – in other words – Roman Catholicism.

I am bolding the part of your post I think is best. I do agree that St. Paul is giving credit to sacred tradition in that quote. Still, I do not think he is talking about the Jews when he said that.If you read the whole paragraph in context, it is about the end times.

[BIBLEDRB]2 Thessalonians 2:3-16[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[kwortham]

My cousin was hurling Rev 22:18-19 at me, apparently with the idea that it wipes out “tradition” as being an addition to scripture.

I turned that verse against my cousin saying that she didn’t have the right to ignore the verse in 2 Thess 2:15.

No surprise that I haven’t heard back from her. I suppose it’s silly to expect a reply from somebody as hard core as this.

That verse is specific to Revelation only. Your cousin was adding to scripture by trying to bind that verse on other books. It should also be noted that if that verse were taken to its fullest meaning using the misguided fundamentalist mindset, then Revelation would be the only book in the Bible. In other words, to add the Gospels and other writings would be to add to the book of Revelation.

You have given another empirical example of flawed protestant thinking. They are grasping for straws in the attempt to misuse this verse:

Rev 22:18 For I testify to every one that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book [Revelation]: If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book. 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy [Revelation], God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from these things that are written in this book.

The funny thing is that many protestants have set up a cottage industry in adding to Revelation with their “end times” and millennialism garbage.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

If one accepts Rev 22:18-19 as forbidding further teaching then one should accept Deuteronomy 4:4:2

2* You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it; that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

and limit oneself to the Books of Moses as the Sadducees did.

 

[kwortham]

If one accepts Rev 22:18-19 as forbidding further teaching then one should accept Deuteronomy 4:4:2 and limit oneself to the Books of Moses as the Sadducees did.

Excellent point, if you are going to be a myopic fundamentalist. The already abridged version of their bibles can be taken down to one OT book. Somehow, I don’t think that they will want to give up John 3:16 and the two or three other verses which they follow in the NT.

 

[TimothyH]

It’s just a pure guess why Paul would write such a thing. What was the question he was addressing?

Verses 1 through 14 indicate that the Christians in Thessalonica were being told that the end of the world was imminent, and that they must do this, that, or some other thing in order to be saved.

Paul again gives instructions on how to properly read the signs that the end is near, and asks the following question…

do you not recall that while I was still with you I told you these things? (2 2 Thessalonians 2:5)

I believe that is the context of 2 thess 2:15. It is an exhortation…

**not to be shaken out of your minds suddenly, or to be alarmed either by a “spirit,” or by an oral statement, or by a letter allegedly from us to the effect that the day of the Lord is at hand. *(2 Thessaloinians 2:2)

-Tim-

 

[BobCatholic]

I thought Jesus Christ was the Cornerstone of the Catholic faith.

Psalm 117:22
The stone which the builders rejected; the same has become the cornerstone.

 

[toosan1967]

My cousin was hurling Rev 22:18-19 at me, apparently with the idea that it wipes out “tradition” as being an addition to scripture.

I turned that verse against my cousin saying that she didn’t have the right to ignore the verse in 2 Thess 2:15.

No surprise that I haven’t heard back from her. I suppose it’s silly to expect a reply from somebody as hard core as this.

Seems to me, as I read it; the verse that John of Patmos wrote pertains exclusively to his revelation and the book he wrote concerning it (". . . .adds to this book"). I Don’t see how it could unquestionably be applied to scripture as a whole. Still, it usually takes a lot of tenderness and love to impute the idea of Sola Scriptura for a God fearing, and loving, and faithful Evangelical Christian. After all; they are steeped in that tradition. Just noticed that kwortham beat me to this observation in #8. Sorry!

 

[Lincoln7]

Crumpy

In this verse, Paul teaches that all revelation is not in the Bible (his letter, for example) but it includes traditions (teachings) that have been given verbally. In practical terms, not all Christian faith has been captured in New Testament writings.

Does the verse indicate the traditions are distinct from what is written by letter?

This seems to refute the stance of sola scriptura, “Bible alone” Christians who anathamize Catholics for adherence to tradition.

I hold to traditions, I simply place them under scripture and test them too it. They are not held as its equal, for it is God Breathed.

This verse stands out as a Biblical command to accept sacred tradition – in other words – Roman Catholicism.

Which tradition do I accept? Orthodoxy or RC?

Regards

Lincs

 

[Lincoln7]

Joe Kelley,

I don’t recall Jesus telling anyone to write or read Scripture.

"Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the scriptures…?” (Matt 21:42)
"Jesus said to them, “Is this not the reason you are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God?” (Mark 12:24)

Note that the Ethiopian was not converted by the Scripture he couldn’t understand, but by exposition of it.

Indeed, some parts of scripture are hard to understand, but those things necessary and essential for salvation are taught so plainly, one can indeed discern their meaning. I listen to teachers far wiser than myself for guidance in the difficult areas.

Regards

Lincs

 

[in_servitude]

I hold to traditions, I simply place them under scripture and test them too it. They are not held as its equal, for it is God Breathed.

When people say that Sacred Scripture is “God Breathed” (as it does say in the bible), I ask the question, “Did God breathe the Gospel of Thomas?”

If not, then **who **says so? For, God does not point this out Himself directly to each of us individuals. He uses people to indicate what is inspired and what is not inspired. People.

Lincoln7 - what person do you go to to determine if the Gospel of Thomas inspired?

The fact is, the bible is a product of Sacred Tradition. They enforce each other. The bible does not stand alone.

 

[Lincoln7]

When people say that Sacred Scripture is “God Breathed” (as it does say in the bible), I ask the question, “Did God breathe the Gospel of Thomas?”

If not, then **who **says so? For, God does not point this out Himself directly to each of us individuals. He uses people to indicate what is inspired and what is not inspired. People.

Lincoln7 - what person do you go to to determine if the Gospel of Thomas inspired?

The fact is, the bible is a product of Sacred Tradition. They enforce each other. The bible does not stand alone.

Hi in_servitude,

For my view of canon development, an excellent work titled ‘canon revisited’ by Dr Michael Kruger is very good. One thing I always have issue with, which the book also notes, is that Catholics often chide Protestants for claiming to follow a self authenticating authority (sacred scripture), whilst at the same time claiming for themselves a self authenticating authority (the magisterium) (1), indeed, what external authority authenticates the magisterium?

The church does play a role in development, but i think RC apologetics go too far in claiming the church plays the only role in said recognition and development (2), ignoring and often dismissing any intrinsic quality to the books of the canon themselves. (3), which with respect, I feel your question slightly touches upon; by advocating there is no difference noted by the christian with the 27 books of the canon, which God makes known to his church, which are consistent among themsleves and God breathed scripture, always viewed as such by one party in the church or another (2 Pet 3:16), intended by the Apostles to be viewed as such (Gal 1:1-24) (4)…, with blatant second century apocryphal, potentially gnostic works like the Gospel of Thomas…

What this all does of course is place the RCC magisterium above both scripture and tradition as the authenticator and interpreter of both. As NT Wright has pointed out, this view of canon recognition as needing an infallible guide commits a logical fallacy akin to a soldier who receives his orders in the mail, and assumes his C.o is the letter carrier, not those who dispatched it. (5).

Kind regards

Lincs

(1) - Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books, Michael J. Kruger, Crossway, 2012, pg 38
(2) - ibid, pg 36
(3) - ibid, pg 36
(4) - ibid, pg 37
(5) - N.*T. Wright, The Last Word: Beyond the Bible Wars to a New Understanding of the Authority of Scripture (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2005), 63. Quoted from: Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books, Michael J. Kruger, Crossway, 2012, pg 37

 

[in_servitude]

For my view of canon development, an excellent work titled ‘canon revisited’ by Dr Michael Kruger is very good. One thing I always have issue with, which the book also notes, is that Catholics often chide Protestants for claiming to follow a self authenticating authority (sacred scripture), whilst at the same time claiming for themselves a self authenticating authority (the magisterium) (1), indeed, what external authority authenticates the magisterium

The magisterium is authenticated by Christ.

Do you have an answer on the Gospel of Thomas?

 

[Lincoln7]

The magisterium is authenticated by Christ.

Do you have an answer on the Gospel of Thomas?

Scripture is authenticated by Christ, I would say, as it is God breathed, it relies on no church descsion to make it so.

Indeed; it was never written by an Apostle, or one connected intimately to any Apostle. It is gnostic, as such is markedly at odds with the 27 books known as the canon which are internally consistent and of course, it was rejected by the early church.

Kind regards

Lincs