Protestants: So what ARE the oral traditions Paul talked about?

[MarcoPolo]

Been reading a lot of complacency on the forums by Protestants when Catholics bring up written and oral traditions. So what are the oral traditions Paul speaks of? (e.g. 2 Thes 2:15).

And as a bonus, what is the meaning of John thinking completeness comes only when going beyond written Scripture? (e.g. 2 John 1:12, 3 John 13)

 

[jfallaw]

I think the basic belief is that everything up until the death of the apostles is ok, but after the apostles died that’s when God’s revelation to men ceased. At least that’s what I’ve been able to make out from the multiple things I’ve heard from multiple protestants. Can’t complain- I hear multiple things from multiple Catholics on this forum lol. Meh.

 

[Atemi]

Been reading a lot of complacency on the forums by Protestants when Catholics bring up written and oral traditions. So what are the oral traditions Paul speaks of? (e.g. 2 Thes 2:15).

The same teachings he was always writing about. It is a great stretch to assume he broke his doctrine down into two differing components: doctrines he wrote and doctrines he only spoke.

PS - since you do not know exactly what teachings Paul was speaking of in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, then you cannot “keep them” either.

If you have a source that can quote what doctrines Paul was talking of “by mouth” to the Thessalonians, then I am all ears. I would love to see them.

And as a bonus, what is the meaning of John thinking completeness comes only when going beyond written Scripture? (e.g. 2 John 1:12,
3 John 13)

He obviously means their joy would be complete if he went to them in person rather than merely write them a letter. I agree with him.

This context is plain.

…

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Been reading a lot of complacency on the forums by Protestants when Catholics bring up written and oral traditions. So what are the oral traditions Paul speaks of? (e.g. 2 Thes 2:15).

And as a bonus, what is the meaning of John thinking completeness comes only when going beyond written Scripture? (e.g. 2 John 1:12, 3 John 13)

The apostolic traditions that are reflected in his preaching and writting. We need only look at his sermons in Acts to see that he preached the gospel.

I understand the 3 John reference as referring to the situation with
specifics of Diotrephes problem.

9I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to be first, will have nothing to do with us. 10So **if I come, I will call attention to what he is doing, gossiping maliciously about us. Not satisfied with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers. He also stops those who want to do so and puts them out of the church. **
11Dear friend, do not imitate what is evil but what is good. Anyone who does what is good is from God. Anyone who does what is evil has not seen God. 12Demetrius is well spoken of by everyone—and even by the truth itself. We also speak well of him, and you know that our testimony is true.

13I have much to write you, but I do not want to do so with pen and ink. 14I hope to see you soon, and we will talk face to face.

The 2 John reference sounds like he will contrast the false teachings with true teachings, identify the false teachers, need be put them out of the church, etc., their joy being complete due the burden of the false and true being clearly spelled out, and no doubts about whom to mark as unworthy of listening to,

7Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. 9Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. 11Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work.

12I have much to write to you, but I do not want to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Acts 17 tells us exactly what Paul spoke, he reasoned from the Scriptures proving that Jesus is the Messiah, that he had to suffer, and rise from the dead.

Paul and Thessalonica (1)
paulonpaul.org/annex/paul_thess_1_90.htm
paulonpaul.org/annex/paul_thess_2_90.htm
paulonpaul.org/annex/paul_thess_3_90.htm

Acts 17 - Paul in Thessalonica, Berea, and Athens

A. God’s work in Thessalonica.

1. (1-4) Paul finds more ministry success in the city of Thessalonica.

Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and demonstrating that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I preach to you is the Christ.” And some of them were persuaded; and a great multitude of the devout Greeks, and not a few of the leading women, joined Paul and Silas.

enduringword.com/commentaries/4417.htm

google.com/search?hl=en&q=Thessalonica+Paul+in+

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

2 Corinthians 4:5 (New International Version)

For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake.

2 Corinthians 2:12 (New International Version)

Now when I went to Troas to preach the gospel of Christ and found that the Lord had opened a door for me,

Romans 15:20 (New International Version)

It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else’s foundation.

1 Corinthians 1:17 (New International Version)

For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

1 Corinthians 1:23 (New International Version)

but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,

2 Corinthians 1:19 (New International Version)

For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by me and Silas[a] and Timothy, was not “Yes” and “No,” but in him it has always been “Yes.”

1 Corinthians 15

Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand.

Looks like Paul was bent on preaching Christs’ death and resurrection for our sins.

We now can see that his oral tradition is exactly what is reflected in his writtings.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I think the basic belief is that everything up until the death of the apostles is ok, but after the apostles died that’s when God’s revelation to men ceased…I hear multiple things from multiple Catholics on this forum lol.

Quick question: under that understanding, are things like the Incarnation or Trinity of the Canon of Scripture something that would fall under oral tradition since these things were properly understood long after the death of the last apostle? Also, you don’t have to worry about hearing “multiple things” from individual Catholics. We have a Magisterium as the safeguard of Christ’s teaching, and you can always count on it for real Catholic teaching that never contradicts.

The same teachings he was always writing about.

The problem I see with that is a) nowhere does he say everything he wrote and spoke are the same, and b) the last thing John left us with in his Gospel was that Christ’s word cannot be confined to writing.

If you have a source that can quote what doctrines Paul was talking of “by mouth” to the Thessalonians, then I am all ears. I would love to see them.

I believe you do not accept this, but the source is the Magisterium.

He obviously means their joy would be complete if he went to them in person rather than merely write them a letter. I agree with him.

This context is plain.

The context is plainer when you consider point b above, also written by John. The joy is that which comes from complete faith, and in this example, John means for them to not be limited to only what he wrote. Recall Paul’s use of “joy” (χαρά) in the same context of going to be with his audience: Phil 1:25 I shall abide and continue with you all for your furtherance and* joy of faith**.*

 

[MarcoPolo]

1 Corinthians 15

Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand.

Looks like Paul was bent on preaching Christs’ death and resurrection for our sins.

We now can see that his oral tradition is exactly what is reflected in his writtings.

Daniel, I appreciate the long reply, but not one of your verses alone, nor several together suggest Paul’s “oral tradition is exactly what is reflected in his writings.” When you cite “gospel…which you received” I think you’re making a leap from there that his oral teachings taught no further aspects of Christ’s message which we know cannot be confined to writing (Jn 21:25).

 

[ralphinal]

I may be off base, but in Acts, Paul quoted Jesus with a saying that is not in the Gosple. See for yourself in Acts 20:35. It could be that this was jsut something that Paul wanted the people to believe, so he quoted Jesus. It is also possible that it was a part of the sayings of CHrist that the early church would have recognized through oral tradition (since it was at the least before some of the Gosples) but it was not recorded in the Gosples for whatever reason. It could also be that we do not have everything written in the Gosples, only what was needed to start the journey in the faith, with the rest filled in by oral tradion and teaching authority of the church. After all, the first Gosples would not have been pocket sized and they were not easy to print up or reorder when out of stock.

 

[bpbasilphx]

It is a great stretch to assume he broke his doctrine down into two differing components: doctrines he wrote and doctrines he only spoke.

But that’s EXACTLY what St. Paul said he did!

2 Thessalonians 2:15 KJV
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

 

[SolaFide]

Been reading a lot of complacency on the forums by Protestants when Catholics bring up written and oral traditions. So what are the oral traditions Paul speaks of? (e.g. 2 Thes 2:15).

And as a bonus, what is the meaning of John thinking completeness comes only when going beyond written Scripture? (e.g. 2 John 1:12, 3 John 13)

When interpreting what is meant we must once again use the inductive (exegetical) historical/grammatical method of interpretation.

As background, remember that when Jesus rebuked the Pharisees, he rebuked them often for elevating their oral traditions ABOVE or ON PAR with the authority of Scripture (such as Matt. 15:1-6, Mark 7:8-9 and Colossians 2:8). And even the Apostles themselves admonished those who listened to them to check what they said against Scripture (Acts. 17:11).

Let’s look at the 2 Thess 2:15 verse with a little of the context for clarity:

2Th 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth,
2Th 2:14 to which He called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.
2Th 2:16 Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and our God and Father, who has loved us and given us everlasting consolation and good hope by grace,
2Th 2:17 comfort your hearts and establish you in every good word and work.

Notice it is in the PAST tense. Paul’s references regarding traditions is in the past tense. Done, over, finished. Only the traditions previously taught by the Apostles are to be followed. Those “traditions” don’t keep coming. They ended even in the Apostles time as they use the past tense…we TAUGHT you these things either by word or epistle.

2Jn 1:12 **Having many things to write to you, I did not wish to do so with paper and ink; but I hope to come to you and speak face to face, **that our joy may be full.
2Jn 1:13 The children of your elect sister greet you. Amen.

John had obviously written to the dear lady all that was necessary to put on paper at the time. There is no indication that whatever else the Apostle wanted to talk to her about was doctrine. It could’ve just have easily been to share all that’s been going on with him. Just as I write an e-mail to a friend with important news but telling them “there’s so much else to tell you but I’ll wait until I see you…”

Doesn’t mean that John was imparting any sacred tradition later to her, because if it was that sacred and important God would’ve inspired him to write it down for future generations of believers. The same with 3 John 13. There is no indication that what John had to say needed to be passed to us. He prefered to have a personal conversation as it was more intimate than letters. There is nothing to indicate in these two passage of John’s that what he intended to share in person was a teaching or doctrine. I could just be John’s desire to joyfully share with brothers and sisters in Christ face to face.

 

[MarcoPolo]

As background, remember that when Jesus rebuked the Pharisees, he rebuked them often for elevating their oral traditions ABOVE or ON PAR with the authority of Scripture

And so He should have. Those were man-made traditions. Is there a misunderstanding here that Catholic Tradition is the same as that? It sounds like it.

Let’s look at the 2 Thess 2:15 verse with a little of the context for clarity:

2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.

Notice it is in the PAST tense. Paul’s references regarding traditions is in the past tense. Done, over, finished. Only the traditions previously taught by the Apostles are to be followed.

Agreed. So what were the oral traditions Paul approves?

There is nothing to indicate in these two passage of John’s that what he intended to share in person was a teaching or doctrine

John 21:25 says Christ cannot be confined to writing.

 

[SolaFide]

Agreed. So what were the oral traditions Paul approves?

The ones that are now in writing known as the New Testament. Nothing more.

John 21:25 says Christ cannot be confined to writing.

Joh 21:25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

John was selective as to what he wrote and he told us why…

Joh 20:30 Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book.
Joh 20:31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

John was being selective for the purpose of proving the diety of Jesus so that we may believe. John was not writing to give an exhaustive account.

We can be assured that John, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, was directed to write all that was sufficient for us to know. To question that is to question the sufficiency of the knowledge and wisdom of the Holy Spirit.

 

[SolaFide]

Those were man-made traditions. Is there a misunderstanding here that Catholic Tradition is the same as that? It sounds like it.

That’s EXACTLY what I’m saying. Catholic tradition is no better than the man made traditions of the Pharisees.

 

[MarcoPolo]

The ones that are now in writing known as the New Testament. Nothing more.

I realize that is your opinion, but is this not adding to what Scripture says?

John was being selective for the purpose of proving the diety of Jesus so that we may believe. John was not writing to give an exhaustive account.

I appreciate your interpretation, but that is not what it says. You are saying John was not exhaustive because what’s in the book of John is all we need? What do we do with the other 26 books? Scripture is indeed intended to get us to believe in Christ, but nowhere does it tell us that Scripture is the source to the exclusion of Tradition or of the Church. It actually says the opposite. Nor does it say Scripture is the totality of Revelation. It is certainly possible to attain salvation by only reading Scripture ever. It is even possible to attain salvation without reading a word of Scripture. What hurts us is when we deny part of God’s Revelation, which is to refuse Christ in His totality. And we are all called to pursue Christ completely.

 

[ralphinal]

Do not forget that the New Testement was not written as a unit or even in a formulaic way. These works were begun 5 or so years after Christ and took 75 years to complete (depending on whose timeline you accept). Some of the letter were written before the Gosples, some after. It is a testement to the Holy Spirit that they form a coherent theology. Paul did not know what John or Peter wrote, so he could not write about it himself. The area covered by the Apostolic Church was relatively small, even in the primitive travel days. Word of mouth teaching would have been fairly common, I would think.

I see it this way: a church was started, with the Apostle teaching everything they needed to know. Peridically, an Apostle would re-visit it or write to it to address an issue. No reason to rehash what was right, only correct what was wrong.

To use a secular parallel, you can look at Greek groups on American College campuses. They all have published rituals for inducting members, but not all of the ritual is included. Some is taught by word of mouth only. Now, it may or may not vary from house to house. But, to say that it is not in the book so it is wrong is too presumptuous. There may be variations, but the overall ritual is the same.

The epistle writers and N.T. writers did not forsee a splitting of the church. They had no reason to think that any of these would be discussed.

 

[Zero_the_Hero]

Scripture is indeed intended to get us to believe in Christ, but nowhere does it tell us that Scripture is the source to the exclusion of Tradition or of the Church. It actually says the opposite. Nor does it say Scripture is the totality of Revelation. It is certainly possible to attain salvation by only reading Scripture ever. It is even possible to attain salvation without reading a word of Scripture. What hurts us is when we deny part of God’s Revelation, which is to refuse Christ in His totality. And we are all called to pursue Christ completely.

Is the oral tradtion that Paul refers to in the letter different from what he wrote? Are you saying that there are doctines outside of Scripture that we need in order to pursue Christ completely?

 

[amberwin]

That’s EXACTLY what I’m saying. Catholic tradition is no better than the man made traditions of the Pharisees.

Pardon the the interuption to a rather circular never ending argument.
**Mr. or Ms. sola scriptura/sola fida **are you saying for 15 centuries God allowed the only Christian body of believers to fall into the gates of hell by creating man-made traditions?
Even when you have been shown text to prove otherwise?
Can the scripture contradict itself.
So continuously thru Old Testament we have this build up of the messiah reign with the promises of a continuous time of the church and then BLAM as soon as the 1st generation apostles died off. We screwed it up again. God must of been mistaken.
Sorry for the sarcasm

 

[MarcoPolo]

Are you saying that there are doctines outside of Scripture that we need in order to pursue Christ completely?

Yes, or at least alluded to in Scripture. Scripture says so as much.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Do not forget that the New Testement was not written as a unit or even in a formulaic way

Good point. I thought of the same thing after talking with our friend. If the assembly of Scripture is to be taken as God’s word, then He had to have guided those who did so by extra-Scriptural Tradition, because the list of the Canon isn’t in there, and there were plenty of other books competing for entry. That alone is enough to demonstrate God’s revelation through Tradition.