What was taught orally was the same as those written (A discussion on 2 Thessalonians 2:15)

[DM_P]

I’ve heard the argument about this during some of James White’s debates that the oral and written tradtions mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 was just the same.

This guy I’m discussing with right now is using this argument. Here is his argument:

"The context: here’s the preceding verse:

2 Thessalonians 2:14 NASBS
[14] It was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. (See verses 12-13 to see what “this” refers to)

The “traditions” are the teachings of the gospel. As the following phrase suggests “SO THEN…” or you could translate it “because of these things” or “due to this knowledge given…”

2 Thessalonians 2:15 NASBS
[15] So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

What Paul is saying is very simple… he taught them the gospel first orally (the traditions)… then he wrote about it.

I said your argument is inconsistent… tell me… has Rome infallibly defined what “tradition” consist of? You see, they haven’t. I know of it least two schools of thought on this and they don’t agree on how tradition is defined.

You see David, it is a bit unfair and inconsistent to say to me that Scripture doesn’t teach Sola Scriptura and then say that I should follow tradition of the church. Tradition that Rome itself is not in agreement on. Again, the burden of proof rest on you to tell me what exactly these traditions are, how and why they are different."

I hope you can help me explain what is wrong with this argument to him.

Thank you all in advance!

David

 

[Kei]

Traditions can be both oral and written.
I don’t get the point, unless he’s trying to say it was exactly the Bible that he was talking about which is streeeeeetching credibility. Don’t forget Gospel of St John says that the works of Jesus would fill all the books of the world and then some, to paraphrase!

 

[DM_P]

He even gave me the burden of proof. lol. Can you help me with that verse in John? thank you

 

[Kei]

To deny the oral traditions is crazy. Ask him if he knows about Judaism. Traditions are super important in Judaism. As fulfilled Judaism, it is natural Catholicism would continue this.
Ask him if he knows who was the rock in the Old Testament. (Abraham).
John 21:25, just for that particular reference I mentioned earlier.

Is his claim seriously that all the traditions were written down?
Sacred Tradition is not the same as the traditions of men.

Just for instance, the Babylonian Talmud is an excellent source for understanding more what was happening during Jesus’ time.

 

[Benadam]

It seems he doesn’t understand that both tradition and scriptures operate in union to preserve and deepen our understanding of what was handed down from the apostles.

The apostles preached by word and example. Then what they preached by word and example was written. Sacred Scriptures.

The oral preaching of the apostles and their authority to teach and enterpret Sacred Scriptures is Sacred Tradition.

Both modes of transmitting the Gospel operated together, at the same time as the New Testament developed.

Sacred Tradition transmits the entire Word of God (as stated in the catechism) in that it is a continuation of the oral preaching in the authority of the apostles handed down to their successors to enterpret what is written, inspired by the Holy Spirit.

 

[LaughingBoy1503]

Traditions of The Church, eh?

Well, for one I would ask him how he knows which books actually belong in The Bible, as The Bible itself does not say what and what is not scripture. There were a lot of forged writings floating around before The Canon was outlined in the 4th century. It was Church Tradition that was appealed to to determine, with the guidance of The Holy spirit of course, to determine which writings were authentic scripture and which were not. See, the different Churches were not all using the same writings at the time. Some did not have certain writings others did. The Church looked at something like 200 writings when determining what was true scripture and what was not. Although I could be mistaken in that it was 200 writings that were rejected but that can easily be looked up.

The Church relied exactly on Church Tradition to canonize The Bible, because “THE BIBLE” did not has a index of which writings belonged in it and which did not. It looked to what writings The Church has had from The start and what author the writings are attributed to. THAT, is Church Tradition in action. That is how The Bible cannon as Catholics have it came to be.

So, whether your friend likes it or not, It was Tradition that helped The Church come to The conclusion on the 27 books of The New Testament. How does your friend know that The Bible is actually The Bible? The Bible does not declare itself to be THE BIBLE and list which books belong in it.

Other Examples of Tradition… well, a lot of it has been written down now, that is true. But Examples would be stuff not explicitly written in scripture but certainly not contradicting scripture and in fact sometimes implied by scripture. For example, The Didache, The first Catechism written in the early 2nd or late 1st century describes how baptism is administered. Now, scripture gives us the formula, but Church Tradition (Oral tradition) told us how the early Christians went about baptism. For example, it says that baptism in running water is preferred but that if not possible, water can be sprinkled on the head. That is why we still do it today.

Infant Baptism. No, its not explicitly in scripture but in The Book of acts it says " Acts 2:39 You must repent and every one of you must be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ, so that you may have your sins forgiven and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For this great promise is for you and your children" and it describes whole households being Baptized. Well, infant Baptism is written about later but it was a oral Tradition only long before that.

Those are a couple of examples.

 

[Francis]

well the answer to 2 Thessalonians 2:5 is below

1 Thessalonians 2:13 13 We also constantly give thanks to God for this, that when you received the word of God that you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word but as what it really is, God’s word, which is also at work in you believers.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm

God graciously arranged that the things he had once revealed for the salvation of all peoples should remain in their entirety, throughout the ages, and be transmitted to all generations.31
I. THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION

75 "Christ the Lord, in whom the entire Revelation of the most high God is summed up, commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel, which had been promised beforehand by the prophets, and which he fulfilled in his own person and promulgated with his own lips. In preaching the Gospel, they were to communicate the gifts of God to all men. This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline."32

In the apostolic preaching. . .

76 In keeping with the Lord’s command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:

• orally “by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit”;33
• in writing “by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing”.34

. . . continued in apostolic succession

77 "In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority."35 Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time."36

78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes."37 "The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer."38

79 The Father’s self-communication made through his Word in the Holy Spirit, remains present and active in the Church: "God, who spoke in the past, continues to converse with the Spouse of his beloved Son. And the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel rings out in the Church - and through her in the world - leads believers to the full truth, and makes the Word of Christ dwell in them in all its richness."39

 

[Francis]

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm

II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

One common source. . .

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.41

. . . two distinct modes of transmission

81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44

 

[Gorgias]

has Rome infallibly defined what “tradition” consist of?

Yes.

DM_P:

You see, they haven’t. I know of it least two schools of thought on this and they don’t agree on how tradition is defined.

I would ask him what in the world he’s talking about here, because he’s clearly confused. The Church does teach what ‘tradition’ is:
Catechism:

76 In keeping with the Lord’s command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:

• orally “by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit”;
• in writing “by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing”.

. . . continued in apostolic succession

77 “In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority.” Indeed, “the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time.”

78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, “the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes.” “The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer.”

79 The Father’s self-communication made through his Word in the Holy Spirit, remains present and active in the Church: “God, who spoke in the past, continues to converse with the Spouse of his beloved Son. And the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel rings out in the Church - and through her in the world - leads believers to the full truth, and makes the Word of Christ dwell in them in all its richness.”

II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

One common source. . .

80 “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal.”

. . . two distinct modes of transmission

81 “Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.”

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.”

 

[MT1926]

2 Thessalonians 2:14 NASBS

[14] It was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. (See verses 12-13 to see what “this” refers to)

The “traditions” are the teachings of the gospel. As the following phrase suggests “SO THEN…” or you could translate it “because of these things” or “due to this knowledge given…”

2 Thessalonians 2:15 NASBS

[15] So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

What Paul is saying is very simple… he taught them the gospel first orally (the traditions)… then he wrote about it.

There is one major flaw in this argument. Ask him to please point out where St. Paul ALREADY wrote them EVERYTHING he already taught them orally?

St. Paul doesn’t say stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by FUTURE letter from us, which you will receive over the course of the next 300 years as we get it all written down and you guys figure out what is and what isn’t inspired.

St. Paul wrote these letters to the Church at Thessalonica around 51. These were one of the first letters to be penned in the NT. The gospels weren’t even written yet. Let alone the entire Bible.

People tend to forget that the Apostles weren’t walking around with iPads. Writing the scriptures was an expensive and labor intensive undertaking. They didn’t and couldn’t write everything down. Just look at 1 and 2 Thessalonians, the reason it is so short is because it was the length of one peace of parchment. I’m a firm believer the Apostles did exactly what I do to this very day. If my kids are doing their daily tasks correctly I don’t add them to the chore list. My time is valuable the only thing that goes on the list is the things they are screwing up or the new things that they haven’t done before.

Hope this helps,

God Bless

 

[DM_P]

This is not my position but, I would want to challenge this argument as I anticipate what He might ask as a rebuttal: What if he says that that is the very reason why they reject Sacred Traditions because they believed that what was written was the same as what was taught orally. Anything outside the scripture, the apostles didnt taught.

 

[LaughingBoy1503]

Well, for one thing I would point out that nowhere in scripture does it say that anything not written in scripture the apostles did not teach. Ask him to prove to you that something has to be in The Bible to be accepted as truth by Christians. Scripture calls The Church the pillar and foundation of Truth (1st Timothy 3:15) It says in scripture to hold to the teachings, both oral and written, as you know. He is the one being un biblical and just saying that everything oral has since been written in scripture wont fly because he cant prove that. Ask him to prove it. Call him out on his Un biblical traditions too, in a charitable way of course. If this is a debate, you do not need to only be on the defense. How does he know we have the correct books of The Bible if The apostles did not write down which books belong in The Bible? What if the church got it wrong and he is reading forgeries? He is supposed to only believe The apostles taught what is written in The Bible, so how can he justify accepting all the books of the bible as scripture if The apostles did not list which books belong in scripture? Not all scripture is even written by apostles. The books of Mark and Luke were not written by apostles. Are they therefore untrue?

There is Biblical evidence also that things were taught that were not written down. Take for example 1 Corinthians 11:33-34 “So, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. 34 If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you come together it will not result in judgment. And when I come, I will give instructions about the remaining matters.”

“When I come I will give instructions about the remaining matters.” Saint Paul was giving all kinds of instructions to the Church in Corinth by letter but he specifically said he would give further instructions when he arrived. There is another example like this in scripture but I cant remember where exactly. Now, how can your friend prove what theses instructions were, let alone whether they were written down later or not? He cant. His believe in Sola scripture is a man made doctrine from the 16th century and he does not even adhere to sola scripture in the correct way because Tradition is fine in sola scriptura unless it contradicts scripture. His rejection of “Tradition” is a tradition of man. If this is a debate, dont be afraid to ask him to justify his beliefe in this doctrine.

 

[DM_P]

When I come I will give instructions about the remaining matters.” Saint Paul was giving all kinds of instructions to the Church in Corinth by letter but he specifically said he would give further instructions when he arrived. There is another example like this in scripture but I cant remember where exactly.

Please do comment here if you remember, these verses are great. You are very helpful. Thanks a lot!

 

[po18guy]

Scripture does nowhere state that it contains, verbatim, everything that was taught. It states exactly the opposite. John 20 and 21 say so. Look also at Luke 3:18, Acts 2:40, and on and on and on…

Anyway, here is the elephant in your friend’s living room:

Where did Jesus teach scripture alone, or scripture at all?

This will shock your friend, but while he “may” follow Christ, he most certainly follows only in accord with 16th century European MEN. Scripture alone is their baby.

 

[LaughingBoy1503]

I remembered in what book I read some examples so I pulled that book from my shelf and found a couple more .
2nd John 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 speak face to face so that our joy may be complete”

3rd John 13 “I have much to write to you but i do not wish to write with pen and ink. Instead I hope to see you soon when we can talk face to face”

Read the entire books for the complete context, lest you be accused of “Twisting scripture” so you know who St John was writing to and what it was about. They are short letters. Only about 2 pages worth.

And I actually think there is even one more example of a apostle saying he would give further instruction apart from his letter when he arrived. I cannot remember where in scripture though. If I remember I will let you know.

Although it is not really what you are asking for and it has little to do with doctrine, it is noteworthy that not even everything Jesus Did was even written down.
John 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” At least it proves not everything was written down and still have not been written down because we still do not know what those things were.

 

[po18guy]

Due to man’s re-invention of Christianity in Europe, we today have a skewed view, in that teachings must agree with the bible; eccleisal communities must be founded on the bible.

Quite the opposite is true. The Church came decades before anything was written. Scripture accords with that which was taught long before quill was ever put to papyrus. It has to, or the scriptures are in error.