If Oral Tradition = Written Tradition, who is the "restrainer"?

[MarcoPolo]

In another thread more than one person suggested oral tradition is simply the same as written tradition. My question is about 2 Thes 2:5-7.

2 Thes 2:5-7 (5)do you not recall that while I was still with you I told you these things? (6)And** now you know what is restraining**, that he may be revealed in his time. (7)For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. But the one who restrains is to do so only for the present, until he is removed from the scene.

In verse 5, it at first sounds like Paul is saying oral and written tradition are the same…but then in 6-7 he goes on to reference this “restrainer” who is “only for the present” who holds back lawlessness until he is “removed.” Paul writes expecting the Thessalonians to know what he’s talking about (v. 6). It is just after that in v. 15 that Paul tells them to hold on to tradition whether it be oral or written.

But the question is: Who is the restrainer?

 

[allischalmers]

He is the Holy Spirit

 

[MarcoPolo]

He is the Holy Spirit

That is a fair assertion, but from where in Scripture are we told this is what Paul meant? I have also heard it is Michael the Arcangel, the Roman authorities, the woman of Genesis 3:15…

 

[SyCarl]

Sola Scriptura does not say that all knowledge is contained in the Bible. It says all that it is necessary for us to know is in the Bible.

Do we really need to know who the restrainer is or just that there is one? Has Tradition passed down who the restrainer actually is? If not, how is this an arguement for Tradition?

 

[exoflare]

Sola Scriptura does not say that all knowledge is contained in the Bible. It says all that it is necessary for us to know is in the Bible.

This still wouldn’t make sense. The list of books that make up the contents of the Bible is not found anywhere in the Bible. Protestants only take this for granted when they hear it from one or another extra-biblical source. I doubt any Protestant would classify such information as “not necessary for us to know”.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Sola Scriptura does not say that all knowledge is contained in the Bible. It says all that it is necessary for us to know is in the Bible.

Depending on who you ask, sola scriptura says the Bible is the only authority or that God’s revelation is passed on only by Scripture.

But if you believe in your definition, I assume you acknowledge that Paul preached this “restrainer” to the Thessalonians orally but did not transmit it in writing, and told them 9 verses later to hold fast to the traditions he taught whether verbally or in writing, even though this “restrainer” he mentions is “unnecessary.” No?

 

[SyCarl]

Depending on who you ask, sola scriptura says the Bible is the only authority or that God’s revelation is passed on only by Scripture.

But if you believe in your definition, I assume you acknowledge that Paul preached this “restrainer” to the Thessalonians orally but did not transmit it in writing, and told them 9 verses later to hold fast to the traditions he taught whether verbally or in writing, even though this “restrainer” he mentions is “unnecessary.” No?

Again I ask. does Tradition tell us definitively who the restrainer is?

 

[MarcoPolo]

Again I ask. does Tradition tell us definitively who the restrainer is?

Not that I’m aware of, but your question does not make sense to me because our understanding of the deposit of faith develops over time, and therefore, it may be defined in the future as we more fully understand the deposit of faith, lead by the Spirit (Jn 16:13, Mt 28:20, etc…). You know, like in the same way we did not have a definitive understanding of the hypostatic union for some 400 years.

But instead of changing the subject of the OP, a simple, “We are not told this in Scripture” would do.

 

[SyCarl]

Not that I’m aware of, but your question does not make sense to me because our understanding of the deposit of faith develops over time, and therefore, it may be defined in the future as we more fully understand the deposit of faith, lead by the Spirit (Jn 16:13, Mt 28:20, etc…). You know, like in the same way we did not have a definitive understanding of the hypostatic union for some 400 years.

But instead of changing the subject of the OP, a simple, “We are not told this in Scripture” would do.

You were effectively saying that Oral Tradition was needed in addition to Scripture since we cannot know who the restrainer is otherwise. I believe that it has now been shown that Oral Tradition has not filled the gap. Your original post is meaningless then in that you have not shown that Tradition contains anything more on this matter than the Bible does. Your question therefore does not show that Scripture does not equal oral tradition.

 

[MarcoPolo]

You were effectively saying that Oral Tradition was needed in addition to Scripture since we cannot know who the restrainer is otherwise.

I already noted the gap does not need to be understood immediately. I did not say anywhere we must understand now who the restrainer is. I am merely showing an example that Paul DID tell them his oral teaching was to be believed right after he told them about something he communicated orally.

If you want more specific examples of Oral Tradition at work in the NT, feel free to ask.