Greetings,
I saw your pickle challenge via a link and thought I would attempt an answer that satisfies my longing for the truth in all matters.
Simply put, at least in the Greek, paradosis [tradition], means something transferred or handed down from one to another. Hence, a teaching, ordinance, tradition, etc.
The context of 2 Thes. 2 is pretty clear, is it not? The apostle warns his readers not to accept anything out of harmony with what he has handed down to them by what he has told them or written to them. I never spoke with Paul. How can I know if something taught (like the return of Jesus has already taken place) is a sanctifying truth unless I can read it is in harmony with the only other thing I have of Paul to compare it to - his writings?
Are all the doctrines of Roman Catholicism in harmony with the writings of Paul, the teachings of Jesus, the writings of all other inspired biblical authors? That seems the larger question, and is one I have answered for myself 25 years ago, having been raised a Roman Catholic, and now a Bible believing Protestant.
Good day,
Ray
Hi Ray,
Thanks for submitting your answer. I respect your longing for the truth. Here is your dilemma though as I see it.
Your answer of course is resting on the case of Sola Scriptura, that the bible alone is the only infallible source of truth. You state that you haven't spoken to Paul... that's true. But you haven't seen his handwriting either or his signature on the letter, so why do you accept 2Thes as written by him in the first place? Paul acknowledges that there are forgeries of his writings circulating among the brethern (Cf. 2 Thes 2:2). How was a person who was living at that time to be certain that a letter claiming to be from Paul was genuine and actually from him? Better yet, how is a person living today like you or me to know for certain? Paul gives one answer in 2Thes3:17:
"I, Paul, write this greeting in my own hand, which is the distinguishing mark in all my letters. This is how I write."
Neither one of us has seen the original parchments of this letter or would know Paul's handwriting for that matter. So why do we accept it as authentic? Why do you Ray? If you really study the matter closely, the only reason either of us can be certain of the authenticity of this letter is by accepting an oral Tradition of the Church.
If we take this argument to the next level, we also have to admit that just because a letter was written by Paul, that in itself doesn't mean it was inspired AND canonical. The Letter to the Colossians provides a prime example of this. In Col. 4:16, Paul speaks about a letter of his to the Laodiceans which he said should be read by the Colossians. As you know though, there is no "Letter to the Laodiceans" in the New Testament. This brings us to the point at hand. How does one know what writings are inspired and belong part of the canon of the bible? It is only by Sacred Tradition and the Councils of the Catholic Church, the guardian of truth, which tells us so.
Frank Jerry
The Catholic Legate
October 26, 2005