Protestants - please explain 2 Thess 2:15 to me?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Flopfoot
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Flopfoot

Guest
2 Thess 2:15 = So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

I thought that Protestants only hold true to traditions that are passed on by the letter (ie bible) and not passed on by spoken word (for eg, Apostolic Tradition). An evangelical anglican said that if I find stuff like this in the bible (that contradicts what Protestants believe - well he didn’t say it exaclty like that, but more or less), I need to look elsewhere / look in context to really understand it. So can you explain to me how this verse doesn’t mean that you should hold to Apostolic Traditions (which are passed on by their spoken word - those very people), and even go as far as to discount them completely?
 
Flopfoot said:
2 Thess 2:15 = So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

I thought that Protestants only hold true to traditions that are passed on by the letter (ie bible) and not passed on by spoken word (for eg, Apostolic Tradition). An evangelical anglican said that if I find stuff like this in the bible (that contradicts what Protestants believe - well he didn’t say it exaclty like that, but more or less), I need to look elsewhere / look in context to really understand it. So can you explain to me how this verse doesn’t mean that you should hold to Apostolic Traditions (which are passed on by their spoken word - those very people), and even go as far as to discount them completely?
Click to expand...

First of all, many Protestants do not ‘completely discount’ Apostolic Tradition; instead, they consider it to be important, but not wholly authoritative in determining Truth.

The major problem that many Protestants have with the idea of an oral tradition is the problem of deviation. With a written text, archaeology can locate earlier manuscripts which corroborate all or part of the manuscript which you have. On this basis, you can say, “This is the real thing.” With oral tradition, you have to depend upon the honesty and perfection of memory of those charged with transmitting the message, and both of these qualities are known to be less than perfect in homo sapiens. (Of course, there are also problems regarding the fact that the earliest NT manuscript copies which we have are dated 300 years after assumed dates of composition of the originals, and that even the most diligent scribes make mistakes, while others may add or subtract passages).

Turning to the passage in question, most of the Protestant readings which I have encountered regarding it stress the contemporaneity of the instruction. Following the rest of chapter 2, in its discussion of false rumours circulating within the church (the problem with an oral tradition), this is an instruction to the Thessalonian church at that time to hold to the core teachings, which, while they were once partially oral, sola scriptura Protestants take as having later been wholly enshrined within the canon texts of the NT.

Not all Protestants follow sola scriptura; some of us have no problem in believing that an oral tradition was meant, or that it continued thereafter, although there is much debate as to how pure any of it (oral or written) was transmitted.
 
That’s a great explanation, thanks.

As a thought to ponder, in non-spiritual circumstances I would be less trustful of oral traditions. I take a lot of heart in Bible verses like this:

for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say.” (Lk 12:12),

which give me confidence that the Holy Spirit is in charge of what we believe to be the Truth. There are of courses many verses that back up God’s claim that He will proclaim the truth and He is a living God.

From a more practical side, having spent some years studying different versions of the Bible, I find the risk of error in any belief not protected by the Holy Spirit to be just as great in the written word - given the variations in documents found by archaeologists that conflict, errors in translations, decisions by Church Fathers in what is, and isn’t, ok then is again included in the Bible, AND all the errors from “humans” interpreting what the Bible really means. It would be easy to discredit this as well (and I think some people do discredit the Bible because of this) - except the fact the God protects the Truth.

If God says teach what I say and what is written, that’s good enough for me - I am not in any position to tell God what of His message I accept and what parts I don’t 🙂

God bless!
 
40.png
awalt:
That’s a great explanation, thanks.

As a thought to ponder, in non-spiritual circumstances I would be less trustful of oral traditions. I take a lot of heart in Bible verses like this:

for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say.” (Lk 12:12),

which give me confidence that the Holy Spirit is in charge of what we believe to be the Truth. There are of courses many verses that back up God’s claim that He will proclaim the truth and He is a living God.

From a more practical side, having spent some years studying different versions of the Bible, I find the risk of error in any belief not protected by the Holy Spirit to be just as great in the written word - given the variations in documents found by archaeologists that conflict, errors in translations, decisions by Church Fathers in what is, and isn’t, ok then is again included in the Bible, AND all the errors from “humans” interpreting what the Bible really means. It would be easy to discredit this as well (and I think some people do discredit the Bible because of this) - except the fact the God protects the Truth.

If God says teach what I say and what is written, that’s good enough for me - I am not in any position to tell God what of His message I accept and what parts I don’t 🙂

God bless!
Click to expand...
So do you believe that the Holy Spirit guides the individual believer in to all truth or the overall Church. If the individual believer, then the Holy Spirit is very confused because the each protestant Christian believes some thing different than the next protestant christian. If he guides the overall church into all truth, there must be one true Church that always faithfully proclaims the truth. Guess what. That is what the Catholic Church believes, not what Protestants believe. Protestants believe that we can disagree on “non-essentias”. But what are non-essentials? Who has the authority to determine what non-essentials are? Again, this idea is not in line with what the scriptures say. The bible says that the Holy Spirit will guide us into ALL TRUTH and means that the Church must be infallible.
 
I have prayed over this issue for decades. My little mind cannot answer your question, but my mind has answered one of my questions. I hope I got it right.

All Christians have the same faith, that is, the substance (“hupostasis”) of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

If it is FAITH that saves, then all Christians are saved.

If I understood the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod’s pastor Tom Baker (KFUO, Law and Gospel), he agreed that all Christians baptized in a sacramental manner have the same *substance *of faith in their soul. Yes, they are saved. “Yes,” he said, “then Roman Catholics and Orthodox Catholics are saved.”

I, as a Roman Catholic, believe the teaching of our Church. However, his teaching is as I stated above, if I have understood him correctly.

I asked him on his radio show, Law and Gospel, on Friday, October 21, 2005. It was about twenty minutes into the show. The shows are on their web site. I asked him about the substance of faith.

Or in other words, I asked him about the objective reality of faith in one’s soul.

In other words, I asked him about the ontic reality of faith in one’s soul.

In other words, I asked him about the ontological reality of faith in one’s soul.

If faith saves, he had to answer yes. Therefore, Roman Catholics and Orthodox Catholics are saved, according to his teaching on that question.

The subjective interpretation of different denominations was not considered. This distinction is huge. It seems to me that most “faith only” Christians are worried about the subjective and not the objective reality of faith. And of course, there is a lot of history and misunderstanding involved.

Side moral note: I cry when I realize that I have the same faith of the saints. They have done so much good with, in, and through Jesus Christ; and I have done so little on my own. Please pray for me!!!
 
You’re right - the Church is infallible because it is guided by the Holy Spirit - individuals are not infallible, nor do they always preach the truth. That’s because they are human. The Bible is pretty clear on that – Jesus says there will be “wolves in sheep’s clothing” that deter and hurt the Church. But the good news is the Church is Jesus’ bride, and Jesus says He won’t let it fail. The Holy Spirit guides, but on His time line - not ours.

That difference between Church and people of the Church is huge, because making a decision away from the Church due to an individual’s behavior or teachings is not wise yet many people do it.

Think about this – people in the Bible would have turned away from God’s clearly chosen religion in the OT due to the behavior of many humans in the Bible who misled or misbehaved, which would have cost them their relationship, and LIFE, with God. We saw how He handled rejection - not pretty:)

The lack of a Protestant “authority” is part of the reason, I assume, that there are 1000s of denominations - everyone makes their own interpretations of the Bible. And there are clearly examples that are not “minor” variations. The Catholic Church has 22 rites, but they all believe the same Teaching, which has been exactly defined.

I guess IMHO any piece of the Bible can be picked apart, which is what many people do. Maybe a better way to think about it is to put the whole Bible in a broader perspective - Which Church is the one that was created by Jesus in the Bible? Because picking your Church defines how you evaluate the Bible.

Any combination of
  1. Deciding I am my own authority on the Bible, (or someone I choose to agree with)
  2. Leaving the Catholic Church (they all did it directly or indirectly),
  3. Disagreeing with the Church due to a human’s behavior or teaching,
  4. Refusing to accept Tradition/Oral teaching (under the guide of #1) in order to minimize the refutation
is plenty to establish another religion/church, and that’s what happened many times over the years.

But to me, step one is figure out the Church Jesus created, then step 2 is BELIEVE. That’s what Jesus says - spend time learning the Truth. Picking the right Church defines how you interpret the Bible, whether you accept Tradition, whether you accept an Authority as Christ’s Vicar on earth.

“For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths.” (2 Ti 4:3).

Too many hints IMHO to take the chance that there is a very simple story that makes sense of all this, and it’s the Catholic Church.

I am not trying to debate, just explain what I believe. I know and respect you think differently about this, and I’ll defend to the death your right to your opinion. Peace…
 
This is one reason why I will not trust the church fathers and the traditions of the RC church.

The Ephesian Elders Exhorted
Acts chapter 20 (Paul speaking)
17 From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called for the elders of the church. …

25 "And indeed, now I know that you all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, will see my face no more. 26 Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men. 27 For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God. 28 Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. 29 For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to** draw away the disciples after themselves**. 31 Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears.:hmmm:
 
40.png
worm:
This is one reason why I will not trust the church fathers and the traditions of the RC church.

The Ephesian Elders Exhorted
Acts chapter 20 (Paul speaking)
17 From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called for the elders of the church. …

25 "And indeed, now I know that you all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, will see my face no more. 26 Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men. 27 For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God. 28 Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. 29 For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to** draw away the disciples after themselves**. 31 Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears.:hmmm:
Click to expand...
Ah, but did Paul intend that to mean of the Church Fathers, or of the heretics the Fathers dueled against? If you do not trust the Church Fathers, then shall we take it then that you do not worship on Sundays, do not read the Bible, do not subscribe to the Trinity, do not celebrate Christmas or Easter? All of them were, in one way or another expounded by the Church Fathers.
 
40.png
worm:
This is one reason why I will not trust the church fathers and the traditions of the RC church.:
Click to expand...
Then you can’t trust the bible either, because it’s a Catholic book written by Catholics for Catholics. Simply make up your own bible too! Should be easy to do, since the spirit is directing you so.
 
40.png
worm:
This is one reason why I will not trust the church fathers and the traditions of the RC church.

The Ephesian Elders Exhorted
Acts chapter 20 (Paul speaking)
17 From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called for the elders of the church. …

25 "And indeed, now I know that you all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, will see my face no more. 26 Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men. 27 For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God. 28 Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. 29 For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to** draw away the disciples after themselves**. 31 Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears.:hmmm:
Click to expand...
That is an interesting interpretation of this passage.

So you believe this passage isn’t an exortation to be on the look out for wolves and to hold fast to the Church and its teachings, but it is instead a call for a general retreat?

Paul is saying that without him there is no hope? God is powerless to protect the Church in Paul’s absence and the wolves will not only draw away disciples but completely overrun the not only the Church at Ephesus but the whole Church? Therefore, it and anyone associated with it should not be trusted?

So in the wake of this total defeat where are we to turn?
 
I have always found it interesting (read as; amusing… or sad) how so many Protestants dispute and discount the early Church fathers when they explicitly said something that does not agree with the man-made version of Christianity (like the Church fathers were conspiring against Protestantism even though that would not be created by men for another several hundred years).

I was raised Presbyterian and was often chastised when I would question the faiths shaky interpretation of certain scripture (even scripture taken from the King James Version of the Bible).

I also find it amusing how Catholics are accused of omitting certain books from the Bible when it was canonized and yet this is the same Bible that the “reformers” later removed books from!

George
 
The more important question is do you believe in the words spoken by Christ Himself? If so explain why Jesus tells one of the two criminals who He is crucified between, that He will surely be with him in Paridise that day (Luke 23:43). Was he or was he not saved? Jesus says he is! Did he have water baptism? The answer is clearly no! Why then was he saved - did he not profess with his mouth and believe in his heart with his confession?

Luke 23:42 Then he said to Jesus, “Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom.”

And what about when Jesus is speaking with Nicodemus, teaching him about salvation…

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

As for believing what is written or oral how about Paul’s Epistle to the Romans 10:9-10 …that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Explain my error in understanding this scripture.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top