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

[Zero_the_Hero]

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

2 Thessalonians 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.

The assumption that you have is that the content of the spoken word and by our letter is not one and the same. There is a difference between what Paul taught by word of mouth and by what he wrote. This inference could be made if Paul said to hold to the spoken word and by our letter which means that one needs both the oral teaching and written teaching. But Paul gives the disjunction which means you can either stand firm by the letter or what Paul verbally spoke, and it does not have to be both otherwise there would have been a conjuction.

 

[AgnosTheist]

So what are the oral traditions Paul speaks of? (e.g. 2 Thes 2:15).

the gospels? it was in oral form for several decades before somebody decided to write them down.

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)

Paul was a human being who enjoyed personal chitchats like the rest of us. I know i’d enjoy seeing and talking to you guys in person.

 

[MarcoPolo]

But Paul gives the disjunction which means you can either stand firm by the letter or what Paul verbally spoke, and it does not have to be both otherwise there would have been a conjuction.

Paul does not say they are exactly the same. The “disjunction” you claim does not have to mean what you say at all. Are you confident that the 27 books in your New Testament and only those books should make up the NT? If you do, you believe in Sacred Tradition. God’s transmission through extra-Scriptural Tradition is nothing new.

In Jude 1:9 of the New Testament, we read,

“But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, ‘The Lord rebuke you.’”

This scene with Moses never appears in the Old Testament. The writer is drawing upon a Tradition (which appears in a work entitled “The Assumption of Moses”). “The Assumption of Moses” was not inspired by God, as all agree, but it contained this true Sacred Tradition.

There are numerous examples like this. Paul states as revelation that which cannot be found in prior Scripture. It is flawed to insist tradition and what is written are the same.

John also wrote in Jn 21:25 and 20:30 that Christ cannot be limited to writing. He wrote as much in 2 John 1:12, 3 John 13.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Paul was a human being who enjoyed personal chitchats like the rest of us. I know i’d enjoy seeing and talking to you guys in person.

Well, if John was going to complete the joy of their faith by idle chitchat, then we’re all sunk, short of having a nice in-person conversation with him.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Well, if John was going to complete the joy of their faith by idle chitchat, then we’re all sunk, short of having a nice in-person conversation with him.

we were talking about paul. Paul admitted that some of his advice was a personal opinion and not from god.

1 Corinthians 7:25
*Now concerning virgins I have no command of the Lord, but **I give an opinion **as one who by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy. *

And his personal advice was flawed. Modern psychology tells us that its better for people to get married. Its happier & people gets to live longer.

 

[Zero_the_Hero]

Paul does not say they are exactly the same. The “disjunction” you claim does not have to mean what you say at all. Are you confident that the 27 books in your New Testament and only those books should make up the NT? If you do, you believe in Sacred Tradition. God’s transmission through extra-Scriptural Tradition is nothing new.

In Jude 1:9 of the New Testament, we read,

“But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, ‘The Lord rebuke you.’”

This scene with Moses never appears in the Old Testament. The writer is drawing upon a Tradition (which appears in a work entitled “The Assumption of Moses”). “The Assumption of Moses” was not inspired by God, as all agree, but it contained this true Sacred Tradition.

There are numerous examples like this. Paul states as revelation that which cannot be found in prior Scripture. It is flawed to insist tradition and what is written are the same.

John also wrote in Jn 21:25 and 20:30 that Christ cannot be limited to writing. He wrote as much in 2 John 1:12, 3 John 13.

What are the truth conditions of a disjunction? A v B is true iff one of the disjuncts is true. Both don’t have to be true for the disjunct to be true.

I am confident that the 27 books in the New Testament are the only books should make up the NT, but I don’t have to wait 1500 years until the council of Trent made an official pronoucment that this makes up the cannon of the NT.

Also Sola Scriptura does not claim that Scripture is an exaustive account of everything that happened in the life of Christ.

 

[SolaFide]

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?

I’m saying that John was not exhaustive for the purposes for which HE was writing at the time. That doesn’t mean the other apostle’s writings aren’t needed. Just as Paul wrote the Colossians for the purposes he needed to write the Colossians or the Ephesians or the Corinthians.

For the purposes at the time for which he was writing his gospel account, and more than likely it was to dispel the gnostic heresies going around at the time, John felt he didn’t need to be exhaustive in his gospel account.

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.

Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. The Word of God is Scripture. The Holy Spirit giving illumination to understand and believe. Nowhere does the Scripture say that tradition is necessary. The Scripture is the living and active:

Heb 4:12 For the word of God is living and effectual, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

Jesus himself said in response to the devil’s temptations:

Mat 4:4 But He answered and said, "It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.’ "

That’s God’s word…for every temptation the devil gave Jesus, Jesus answered with “It is written…” meaning the word of God, not tradition. If Jesus depended upon Scripture to refute and rebuke Satan, what else do I need?

2Ti 3:14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you learned them,
2Ti 3:15 and that from childhood **you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. **
2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
2Ti 3:17 that the man of God may be proficient, having been thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Now, if Paul told Timothy that the Holy Scriptures could make him wise, if Scripture can thoroughly equip me in doctrine, reproof and correction and instruction in righteousness so that I can be thoroughly and completely equipped and not lacking anything for my Christian walk (I’m expanding on the true meaning of the Greek) then why do I need tradition?!

Also, if Paul, an apostle called and instructed by Christ Jesus himself, was not threatened or undermined by the Bereans checking the Scriptures to see if what Paul said was true (Acts 17:11) but rather Paul called them noble…then why shouldn’t we?
Notice Paul didn’t call them noble for checking with traditions but rather with the Scriptures. That’s the acid test that counts.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I am confident that the 27 books in the New Testament are the only books should make up the NT, but I don’t have to wait 1500 years until the council of Trent made an official pronoucment that this makes up the cannon of the NT.

Have you been reading a lot of MacArthur and Gendron? The canon was in the same form as Trent’s pronouncement since at least the 4th century because we have the councils that name them.

At least you now know Paul believed in Revelation via Tradition.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. The Word of God is Scripture. The Holy Spirit giving illumination to understand and believe. Nowhere does the Scripture say that tradition is necessary. The Scripture is the living and active:

Couple quick things to clear up:

1. Scripture contains the Word of God. But, the Word of God is not always transmitted via Scripture. That is a flawed premise. Jesus is the Word if you want to get right down to it, and we have agreed that all Jesus said and did is not contained in Scripture.
2. It’s another fallacy to say Tradition isn’t “necessary”. If you believe we should nix what isn’t “necessary”, I can give you a good list of verses from your Bible that you can just delete, because they aren’t necessary. Tradition is Revelation. That must be your measure, not your personal opinion of whether or not it’s “necessary”. And there are so many references in this thread, including in my 2nd to last post, that show that God reveals not only by Scripture, especially in Paul and John. The canon of Scripture itself is a product of Tradition, and frankly, those who deny Tradition have no way around this other than to accept it.
3. Scripture should be used just like the Bereans, it is active for us today, and all that stuff. Of course it is noble to use Scripture. Most of your post I have no problem with. Don’t misunderstand the Catholic who defends Tradition. We are not saying Tradition instead of Scripture. We are saying both are God’s Revelation. And certainly nowhere does Scripture say that the written word is the only form of Revelation. Not in the Bereans passage or anywhere else. But believe it if you want to.

 

[Zero_the_Hero]

Have you been reading a lot of MacArthur and Gendron? The canon was in the same form as Trent’s pronouncement since at least the 4th century because we have the councils that name them.

At least you now know Paul believed in Revelation via Tradition.

I have not read MacArthur and Gendron. The 4th century councils dealt with the Arian controversy and did not make the canon of Scripture official for the Church. I believe tradition and Scripture have the same content.