Answer submitted by flee2christ
Re: 2 Th 2:15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter. (niv)
Certainly, Paul here is exhorting the brethren to hold fast to those things which he taught. But to elevate this exhortation to the same level as a commandment of God is to stretch far beyond the import of this passage.
But, be that as it may, Paul's words ought to be heeded. One must ask, what is it that Paul taught which he was concerned enough about to prompt this explicit exhortation?
The immediate context seems to be either the eschatological information given in the earlier part of the chapter, or the soteriological statement made in the preceding two verses. I think the context is the soteriology expressed in the preceding two verses.
Why? Because Paul made similar exhortations in other passages of scripture, including:
Gal 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! (niv)
Paul knew the impact of preaching a false gospel, and in 2 Thes. 2:15 gives another strong exhortation that the readers of the letter not depart from it.
Those of the catholic persuasion often take this verse out of context and attempt to use it in a fashion that would allow the denial of biblical truth in favor of human traditions. However, to contort the text to fit that meaning is simply not possible.
One need only look at the meaning of the greek word translated as teaching (tradition in the kjv, and possibly other translations) to find that the passage does not at all have in view the vain traditions of men.
Jesus Himself clearly spoke out against the practice of elevating the traditions of men over the commands of God.
Mat 15:3 Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? (niv)
and ...
Mat 15:6 ...Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. (niv)
Paul's teaching in 2 Thes. 2 certainly can't be understood to mean something contrary to what Jesus taught, nor what Paul himself taught elsewhere in scripture, including:
Col 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ. (niv)
So, Prot Pickle? Hardly. Insisting on following the traditions of men in the face of scripture to the contrary is a Cath Pickle. Eat up.
flee2christ
Frank responds:
Re: 2 Th 2:15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter. (niv)
Certainly, Paul here is exhorting the brethren to hold fast to those things which he taught. But to elevate this exhortation to the same level as a commandment of God is to stretch far beyond the import of this passage.
Protestants will go to any extreme to nullify the word of God. In this case, instead of raving about Paul which most Protestants do, this person seems to denigrate Paul's words and say that they aren't really that important. Let's not forget what Paul had told the Thesallonians previously:
1Thel 2:13
And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe.
St. Paul actually makes the claim that his oral preaching and that of the rest of the Apostles should be accepted not as the tradition of men but OF GOD. So here we have a clear indication that yes, there are traditions of men, but there are also traditions which we in the Catholic Church refer to with a capital T...Sacred Tradition that are just as inspired and binding on us as Christians as the written Word is.
As you read through the submitted answer, notice that not once does our Protestant friend attempt to cite one verse where Jesus or an Apostle specifies that at some point in time, we are only to hold firm to what is written(sola scriptura) instead of what Paul commands in 2Thel2:15. Instead he attempts to distort what the bible says basing all his arguments on the false premise of sola scriptura. This neglect on his part is an answer in itself.
But, be that as it may, Paul's words ought to be heeded. One must ask, what is it that Paul taught which he was concerned enough about to prompt this explicit exhortation?
I'm glad he can finally admit that Paul's words are relevant and that what he commanded us to hold firm to was of major concern. But our question didn't deal with what SPECIFICALLY this oral and written tradition was made up of. Instead, our question dealt with the notion of whether there actually IS a dual source of the Gospel which comes down to us today, the oral and the written which Paul specifically differentiates between. It is up to the Protestant who holds to "sola scriptura" to come up with a verse that explicitly denies that we are to continue to hold firm to both and that the written Word contains all that was taught by Jesus and the Apostles.
The immediate context seems to be either the eschatological information given in the earlier part of the chapter, or the soteriological statement made in the preceding two verses. I think the context is the soteriology expressed in the preceding two verses.
Let's look at the preceding two verses:
13 But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth.
14 He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
The oral and written traditions that Paul was commanding us to hold firm to were no less than the Gospel itself.
Why? Because Paul made similar exhortations in other passages of scripture, including:
Gal 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! (niv)
Paul knew the impact of preaching a false gospel, and in 2 Thes. 2:15 gives another strong exhortation that the readers of the letter not depart from it.
Those of the catholic persuasion often take this verse out of context and attempt to use it in a fashion that would allow the denial of biblical truth in favor of human traditions. However, to contort the text to fit that meaning is simply not possible.
We've read this verse in context. Paul's mention of oral AND written tradition consisted of nothing less than the Gospel itself. Now it is up to you to show us one verse that commands us to stand firm in only the written word at some later time. The question at hand is not whether a certain Catholic Sacred Tradition contradicts the Bible, which none do, but whether there actually exists an oral Tradition apart and distinct from the written Word which must be adhered to. Paul and the Catholic Church seems to think there is. You seem to think there isn't but have never produced a verse from the bible to back up your belief.. If you wish to claim that ALL tradition falls under the category of "man-made" tradition, which I don't believe you do, then Paul's writings themselves fall under that category as well and should be rejected as well. In 2 Thes. 2:15, Paul not only defines what he spoke ORALLY as tradition...but also what he wrote! I challenge the submitter and every person reading this to find one verse which explicitly teaches that the Word of God comes to us only in written form. The Bible nowhere teaches this and the idea itself is a human tradition and a denial of biblical truth!
One need only look at the meaning of the greek word translated as teaching (tradition in the kjv, and possibly other translations) to find that the passage does not at all have in view the vain traditions of men.
Well, actually the same greek word used in Matt 15:3 for tradition is also used in 2Thel2:15. What differentiates the two is that the traditions Jesus speaks of in Matthew's gospel were traditions of men that nullified the Word of God, such as sola scriptura. The Traditions which Paul speaks of have for their origin, Jesus or one of the Apostles inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Strong's # 3860
Original Word: para/dosiv
Definition: a giving over which is done by word of mouth or in
writing, i.e. tradition by instruction, narrative, precept, etc.
objectively, that which is delivered, the substance of a teaching
of the body of precepts, esp. ritual, which in the opinion of the
later Jews were orally delivered by Moses and orally transmitted
in unbroken succession to subsequent generations, which precepts,
both illustrating and expanding the written law, as they did were
to be obeyed with equal reverence
Jesus Himself clearly spoke out against the practice of elevating the traditions of men over the commands of God.
Yes He did. But once again, we aren't claiming that these oral Traditions are man-made. We are claiming that they originally came forth from the mouth of Jesus or an Apostle, something which logically can't be said for "sola scriptura" since that would automatically disqualify the very preaching of Jesus or an Apostle at that very moment. Public Revelation didn't end until the death of the last Apostle. It would be impossible for those converts living before the death of the last Apostle to believe in sola scriptura and still accept the Apostles oral teaching as the "word of God".
So yes, Jesus did speak out against man-made tradition so why are you elevating the tradition of men(sola scriptura) over the command of God(2Thel2:15)? The early church never knew of such an erroneous doctrine.
Mat 15:3 Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? (niv)
and ...
Mat 15:6 ...Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. (niv)
Paul's teaching in 2 Thes. 2 certainly can't be understood to mean something contrary to what Jesus taught, nor what Paul himself taught elsewhere in scripture, including:
Col 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ. (niv)
Let's see what else the bible has to say about tradition:
1 Corinthians 11:
1 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.
2 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.2Thel3:
6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.
So, Prot Pickle? Hardly. Insisting on following the traditions of men in the face of scripture to the contrary is a Cath Pickle. Eat up.
Paul and the Catholic Church teach that we are to hold firm to what was taught orally and in writing. Our Protestant friend wishes to hold to only what was written. Who is believing contrary to Scripture? No Protestant will claim to be infallible. All they can really give you is their own opinion, hopefully, for their sake, a sincere and honest one. But doesn't our Lord condemn teaching as doctrine mere human opinion?! What we have just seen is another skirt around the real issue at hand. Is there an oral Tradition passed down to us today through the Church that is distinct but not contradictory to the Bible? Yes there is. Can it be preserved for us in the same way that the Bible was? Of course. Every Protestant will admit that the original authors of the letters and books included in the bible were inspired. But what about those men who copied the bible by hand, word for word, after the fact, down to our time? Were these men inspired to? No they weren't. So how is it that you can be so sure that you have God's authentic word in the Bible. Well, actually, you can't, unless you accept the authority of the Catholic Church who has the Holy Spirit as its guide. But that's really besides the point right now. My point is that if God allowed mere men through the ages to authentically pass down the written word (Bible) to you, why do you think he couldn't do the same with the oral word (Sacred Tradition) Prot Pickle...yes indeed. Caught in the middle and tagged out. Next batter?
Frank Jerry
The Catholic Legate
September 30, 2006