![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2021\/02\/Cover-554x839.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
[see book and purchase information<\/a>]<\/span><\/p>\n I have addressed this topic several times, in papers that will be listed at the end. But \u2014 to my great delight \u2014 I\u2019ve discovered some additional insights from Scripture, which were found in searches, after happening upon a passage in 2nd Thessalonians, while critiquing the false and unbiblical doctrine and tradition of sola Scriptura<\/em>. I enjoy almost nothing more than finding\u00a0\u201ctreasures\u201d in the Bible: much as King David and the prophets did, over two or three thousand years ago:<\/span><\/p>\n Psalm 119:130<\/strong> (RSV)\u00a0The unfolding of\u00a0<\/b>thy words gives light;\u00a0it imparts understanding to the simple.<\/span><\/p>\n Psalm 119:162\u00a0<\/strong>I rejoice at\u00a0<\/b>thy word\u00a0<\/b>like one who finds great spoil.<\/span><\/p>\n Jeremiah 15:16<\/strong> . . .\u00a0<\/strong>thy words became to me a joy\u00a0and the delight of my heart . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n One thing I love so much about the Bible and being an apologist is experiences such as this, where some particular insight or teaching is found in Holy Scripture that was never thought of before, and which bolsters the Catholic conception of Christianity all the more, confirming its protection by the Holy Spirit, the \u201cCounselor\u201d (Jn 14:16, 26) Whom, so Jesus taught us, will \u201cguide\u201d us \u201cinto all the truth\u201d (Jn 16:13) and \u201cteach\u201d us \u201call things\u201d (Jn 14:26). The Holy Spirit protects the Catholic Church (Acts 20:28; 1 Tim 3:15) and the popes who lead it (\u201cSimon [Peter] . . .\u00a0I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren\u201d: Lk 22:32; cf. Jn 21:15-17; Mt 16:18-19).<\/span><\/p>\n So here are some things that occurred to me today. They were in Holy Scripture all along.\u00a0 But sometimes we miss things that are obvious, even though they have been right in front of us all along. In some cases it\u2019s the result of seeing familiar passages with \u201cnew eyes\u201d or a different perspective in terms of interpretation and cross-referencing.<\/span><\/p>\n 2 Thessalonians 2:1-2, 5\u00a0<\/strong>Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our assembling to meet him, we beg you, brethren,\u00a0[2] not to be quickly shaken in mind or excited, either by spirit <\/span>or<\/span> by word<\/span>, or<\/span> by letter<\/span> purporting to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. . . . [5]\u00a0Do you not remember that when I was still with you I<\/span> told<\/span> you this?<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n These are the passages that stimulated me to undertake this present analysis. I happened to see them while I was examining the context for the famous prooftext for apostolic tradition, 2 Thessalonians 2:15: \u201cstand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.\u201d What\u2019s striking \u2014 especially in context \u2014 is Paul\u2019s free and easy equation<\/em> of the authority and trustworthiness of oral teaching alongside written. <\/span><\/p>\n He clearly asserts the authority of his epistle (and by implication, all<\/em> his epistles), in 2:15 and also 3:14: \u201cIf any one refuses to obey what we say in this letter, note that man, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed\u201d (cf. 1 Thess 5:27; Col 4:16). Protestants readily agree with us in that regard. But they seem to overlook the fact that he also<\/em> gives his oral word the same<\/em> authority (in 2:13 and 2:2, 5; cf. 1 Thess 2:13; 2 Tim 1:13-14; 2:2).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 1 Thessalonians 3:2-4\u00a0<\/span><\/strong>and we sent Timothy, our brother and God\u2019s servant in the gospel of Christ, to establish you in your faith and to exhort<\/span> you,\u00a0<\/span>[3] that no one be moved by these afflictions. You yourselves know that this is to be our lot.\u00a0<\/span>[4] For when we were with you, we told you beforehand<\/span> that we were to suffer affliction; just as it has come to pass, and as you know.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is a fascinating equation of written and oral teaching. The teaching (that Christians were to fully expect afflictions and sufferings) is in writing as part of this epistle. But note that it was also authoritatively proclaimed orally by Paul (\u201cbeforehand\u201d) and also by Timothy (\u201cexhort[ed] you\u201d). Thus, in three verses Paul provides proof of \u201cequal\u201d oral and written proclamation of the same teaching. The logical conclusion is that he sees no difference in authority, whether a teaching comes through oral proclamation or tradition, or the written medium. <\/span><\/p>\n In other words, it\u2019s the Catholic understanding of the rule of faith, whereby tradition (including oral tradition) and writing in what was to be understood (later) as Scripture have the same authority and binding nature. The Thessalonians were just as bound<\/em> by the teaching when Paul spoke it to them and Timothy further exhorted them, as when they received Paul\u2019s letter.<\/span><\/p>\n 1 Thessalonians 2:13<\/strong>\u00a0And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the<\/span> word of God which you heard<\/span> from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n I\u2019ve noted in books and several papers that \u201cword of God\u201d in Scripture is much more often referring to authoritative prophetic or apostolic preaching rather than to Holy Scripture itself. In this instance, what the Thessalonians \u201cheard\u201d was not only the true gospel and accompanying Christian teachings, but indeed, the very \u201cword of God.\u201d It\u2019s hard to imagine a stronger<\/em> statement of the veracity and trustworthiness of oral tradition.<\/span><\/p>\n 2 Timothy 2:2\u00a0<\/strong>and what you have heard from me<\/span> before many witnesses entrust to faithful men<\/span> who will be able to teach others<\/span> also.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Here Timothy receives oral traditions and passes them on to others (orally or, if in writing, not inspired writing like Scripture), who in turn teach yet more people. Conclusion: oral tradition has the same authority as written \/ scriptural tradition. Otherwise, Paul would have to restrict such things, passed on in turn to others, to what was in his epistles only. But he never does that. He tells Timothy (in inspired Scripture) to \u201centrust\u201d his oral teaching to others to in turn pass on. He refers to his epistles in a \u201cnon-exclusive\u201d way that doesn\u2019t rule out oral teachings alongside them (precisely as in the rule of faith of Catholicism, not<\/em> Protestantism).\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Ephesians 1:13 <\/strong>. . .\u00a0you also, who have heard the word of truth<\/span>, the gospel<\/span> of your salvation . . .<\/span><\/p>\n Ephesians 3:2<\/strong>\u00a0assuming that you have heard of<\/span> the stewardship of God\u2019s grace that was given to me for you,<\/span><\/p>\n Ephesians 4:21<\/strong>\u00a0assuming that you have heard about<\/span> him [Christ] and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus.<\/span><\/p>\n Philippians 4:9<\/strong>\u00a0What you have learned and received and heard<\/span> and seen in me, do; and the God of peace will be with you.<\/span><\/p>\n Colossians 1:5-6<\/strong>\u00a0because of the hope laid up for you in heaven. Of this you have heard before in the word of the truth, the gospel<\/span>\u00a0[6] which has come to you, as indeed in the whole world it is bearing fruit and growing \u2014 so among yourselves, from the day you heard<\/span> and understood the grace of God in truth,<\/span><\/p>\n Colossians 1:23<\/strong> . . .\u00a0not shifting from the hope of the gospel which you heard<\/span>, . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n These are many instances of hearing the oral tradition, or gospel (which are essentially synonymous<\/em> in the New Testament and especially in St. Paul\u2019s usage). The Philippians were bound to \u201cdo\u201d not only what they learned from Paul\u2019s letters, but also what they heard him orally teach (Phil 4:9). Oral tradition or proclamation was \u201cthe word of [the] truth\u201d (Eph 1:13; Col 1:5) and a form of the \u201cgospel\u201d (Eph 1:13; Col 1:5, 23).<\/span><\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 2:1, 4, 13<\/strong>\u00a0When I came to you, brethren, I did not come proclaiming<\/span> to you the testimony of God in lofty words or wisdom. . . . [4]\u00a0and my speech<\/span> and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, . . . [13]\u00a0And we impart this in words<\/span> not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is more indication of the authoritative weightiness and power of oral proclamation \/ tradition.<\/span><\/p>\n 2 Corinthians 10:9-11\u00a0<\/strong>I would not seem to be frightening you with letters<\/span>.\u00a0[10] For they say, \u201cHis letters<\/span> are weighty and strong, but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech<\/span> of no account.\u201d\u00a0[11] Let such people understand that what we say by letter<\/span> when absent, we do when present<\/span>.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is an interesting sort of equivalence between Paul\u2019s letters and his providing an example when he is with the Corinthians. He\u2019s teaching that his example when with them is a form of teaching also, which is not written (see Phil 4:9 above and 1 Cor 4:16; 11:1; Phil 3:17; 1 Thess 1:6-7; 2 Thess 3:7-9). St. Paul in turn imitates Christ (1 Cor 11:1; 1 Thess 1:6).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 2 Corinthians 3:1-3<\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, as some do, letters<\/span> of recommendation to you, or from you? [2] You yourselves are our letter<\/span> of recommendation, written on your hearts, to be known and read by all men<\/span>;\u00a0[3] and you show that you are a letter<\/span> from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God<\/span>, not on tablets of stone<\/span> but on tablets of human hearts<\/span>.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Here, St. Paul continues (in a fascinating rhetorical and splendidly eloquent way) the same sort of analysis of the harmonious nature of writing and behavior of believers.<\/span><\/p>\n Acts 15:22-23, 27-32, 35; 16:4<\/strong>\u00a0Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsab\u2019bas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren,<\/span>\u00a0[23] with the following letter<\/span>: . . . [27]\u00a0<\/span>We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth<\/span>.\u00a0[28] For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:\u00a0[29] that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.\u201d\u00a0[30]\u00a0So when they were sent off, they went down to Antioch; and having gathered the congregation together, they delivered the letter<\/span>. [31] And when they read it<\/span>, they rejoiced at the exhortation.\u00a0[32] And Judas and Silas, who were themselves prophets, exhorted the brethren with many words<\/span> and strengthened them. . . . [35]\u00a0But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord<\/span>, with many others also. . . . [16:4]\u00a0As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders<\/span> who were at Jerusalem.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is Paul-related, but written by Luke. It shows the same outlook: equality of authority whether something is taught orally or through a letter.\u00a0 It had to do with the decision of the Jerusalem Council, which decreed a teaching which was binding on all churches (as seen in Acts 16:4). The teaching was delivered through a written letter (15:23; 30-31; cf. 16:4). Note that the decision was determined by an assembly of apostles and other elders in the early Church (without any known or stated biblical argumentation, in order to arrive at the decision), and then sent out to be observed by the Church as a whole (this is the Catholic understanding of authoritative ecumenical councils).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n What is remarkable is how the verbal proclamation is made equal to the letter itself, in the words, \u201cJudas and Silas, . . . will tell you the same things<\/em> by word of mouth\u201d (15:27). Then reference is made to Judas and Silas exhorting and strengthening \u201cthe brethren\u201d (15:32) and Paul and Barnabas \u201cteaching and preaching\u00a0the word of the Lord\u201d (15:35).<\/span><\/p>\n There isn\u2019t the slightest hint of a verbal oral tradition or proclamation being lesser than a written one. The entire episode is completely in accord with the Catholic understanding of the rule of faith: the \u201cthree-legged stool\u201d of Bible-Tradition-Church.<\/span><\/p>\n Protestants (as always) offer a counter-reply to our rule of faith. They call it \u201cinscripturation.\u201d It is explained at length by the late Protestant apologist Norman Geisler, writing with\u00a0Ralph MacKenzie, in the article, \u201cA Defense of Sola Scriptura\u201d<\/a> (Christian Research Institute<\/em>,\u00a0 4-8-09):<\/span><\/p>\n [T]he only reason Jesus and the apostles could appeal to an authority outside the Bible was that God was still giving normative (i.e., standard-setting) revelation for the faith and morals of believers. This revelation was often first communicated orally before it was finally committed to writing (e.g., 2 Thess. 2:5). Therefore, it is not legitimate to appeal to any oral revelation in New Testament times as proof that nonbiblical infallible authority is in existence today<\/strong>. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Roman Catholics admit that the New Testament is the only infallible record of apostolic teaching we have from the first century. However, they do not seem to appreciate the significance of this fact as it bears on the Protestant argument for\u00a0sola Scriptura.<\/em>\u00a0For even many early fathers testified to the fact that all apostolic teaching was put in the New Testament. While acknowledging the existence of apostolic tradition, J. D. N. Kelly concluded that \u201cadmittedly there is no evidence for beliefs or practices current in the period which were not vouched for in the books later known as the New Testament.\u201d . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n It is true that the New Testament speaks of following the \u201ctraditions\u201d (=teachings) of the apostles, whether oral or written. This is because they were living authorities set up by Christ (Matt. 18:18; Acts 2:42; Eph. 2:20). When they died, however, there was no longer a living apostolic authority since only those who were eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ could have apostolic authority (Acts 1:22; 1 Cor. 9:1). Because the New Testament is the only inspired (infallible) record of what the apostles taught, it follows that since the death of the apostles the only apostolic authority we have is the inspired record of their teaching in the New Testament. That is, all apostolic tradition (teaching) on faith and practice is in the New Testament<\/strong>. This does not necessarily mean that everything the apostles ever taught is in the New Testament, any more than everything Jesus said is there (cf. John 20:30; 21:25). What it does mean is that all apostolic teaching that God deemed necessary for the faith and practice (morals) of the church was preserved<\/strong> (2 Tim. 3:15-17). It is only reasonable to infer that God would preserve what He inspired. The fact that apostles sometimes referred to \u201ctraditions\u201d they gave orally as authoritative in no way diminishes the Protestant argument for\u00a0sola Scriptura.<\/em>\u00a0First, it is not necessary to claim that these oral teachings were\u00a0inspired<\/em>\u00a0or\u00a0infallible,<\/em>\u00a0only that they were\u00a0authoritative. . . .\u00a0<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n [H]owever authoritative the apostles were by their office, only their inscripturated words are inspired and infallible (2 Tim. 3:16-17; cf. John 10:35). There is not a shred of evidence that any of the revelation God gave them to express was not inscripturated by them in the only books \u2014 the inspired books of the New Testament \u2014 that they left for the church<\/strong>.\u00a0<\/span>[my bolding]<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Inscripturation as a counter-reply to the biblical \/ Catholic rule of faith utterly fails, and is itself merely an unbiblical tradition of men (therefore, self-refuting, given Protestant premises of sola Scriptura<\/em>). It\u2019s simply not taught in the Bible. Rather, it\u2019s assumed<\/em> without any biblical indication (neither expressly stated nor even deduced). The Bible never teaches what Geisler teaches: \u201call apostolic tradition (teaching) on faith and practice is in the New Testament.\u201d How could he or any Protestant possibly know<\/em> that? The Bible doesn\u2019t state it. <\/span><\/p>\n If they disagree, let them produce any statement in the Bible that claims such a thing. They usually don\u2019t even try, but Geisler (in desperation, whether he knew it or not) trots out the old reliable warhorse, 2 Timothy 3:15-17. It says nothing whatsoever along these lines. It simply teaches that Scripture is great for teaching and reproof, etc. (which no one disagrees with). F<\/span>or all the biblical references above, and articulate presentation, Geisler\u2019s teaching above is, in the final analysis, not based on what the Bible teaches (all things considered) regarding these matters, and contrary to many things that it does<\/em>\u00a0undeniably teach.<\/span><\/p>\n In a paper of mine from 2004<\/a>, I refuted this notion of \u201cinscripturation\u201d from the Bible, in reply to Reformed Baptist anti-Catholic polemicist James White:<\/span><\/p>\n [T]his is a foolish approach because it would require us to believe that Paul and other apostles were in error with regard to how Christian or Church authority works. . . . If they believed in\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>\u00a0(as models for us), then they would have taught what they knew to be Scripture (in those days, the Old Testament), and that alone, as binding and authoritative (for this is what\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>\u00a0holds). If they didn\u2019t understand authority in the way that God desired, how could they be our models [1 Cor 4:16; Phil 3:17; 2 Thess 3:7-9]? And if the very apostles who wrote Scripture didn\u2019t understand it, and applied it incorrectly in such an important matter, how can\u00a0we<\/i>\u00a0be expected to, from that same Scripture? A stream can\u2019t rise above its source.<\/span><\/p>\n Lastly, White implicitly assumes here, as he often does, that everything the apostles taught was later doctrinally recorded in Scripture. This is his hidden premise (or it follows from his reasoning, whether he is aware of it or not). But this is a completely arbitrary assumption. Protestants have to believe something akin to this notion, because of their aversion to authoritative, binding tradition, but the notion itself is unbiblical. They agree that what apostles taught was binding, but they fail to see that some of that teaching would be \u201cextrabiblical\u201d (i.e., not recorded in Scripture). The Bible itself, however, teaches us that there\u00a0are<\/i>\u00a0such teachings and deeds not recorded in it (Jn 20:30, 21:25, Acts 1:2-3, Lk 24:15-16,25-27). The logic is simple (at least when laid out for all to see):<\/span><\/p>\n 1. Apostles\u2019 teaching was authoritative and binding [i.e., for all practical purposes, \u201cinfallible\u201d].<\/span> . . .\u00a0Where in the Bible does it say that this period is absolutely unique because the Bible was being written during it? The inspired Bible either has examples of historical events in it which are models for us, or it doesn\u2019t. If it does, White\u2019s case collapses again. If it doesn\u2019t, I need to hear why someone would think that, based on the Bible itself, which doesn\u2019t even list its own books, let alone teach us that we can\u2019t determine how the Church was to be governed by observing how the first Christians did it.<\/span><\/p>\n Why do we have to still have apostles around in order to follow their example, as we are commanded to do? What does the ending of revelation have to do with that, either? Therefore, it is (strictly-speaking) an \u201cextrabiblical tradition.\u201d If so, then it is inadmissible (in the sense of being binding) according to the doctrine of\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>. If that is the case, then I am under no obligation to accept it; it is merely white\u2019s arbitrary opinion. Nor is White himself. He contradicts himself, and this is a self-defeating scenario, involving the following self-contradiction: \u201c<\/span>In upholding the principle which holds only biblical teachings as infallible and binding, I must appeal to an extrabiblical teaching.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n
\n2. Some of that teaching was recorded in Scripture, but some was not.<\/span>
\n3. The folks who heard their teaching were bound to it whether it was later \u201cinscripturated\u201d or not.<\/span>
\n4. Therefore, early Christians were bound to \u201cunbiblical\u201d teachings or those not known to be \u201cbiblical\u201d (as the Bible would not yet be canonized until more than three centuries later).<\/span>
\n5. If they were so bound, it stands to reason that\u00a0we<\/i>\u00a0could and should be, also.<\/span>
\n6. Scripture itself does not rule out the presence of an authoritative oral tradition, not recorded in words. Paul refers more than once to a non-written tradition (e.g., 2 Tim 1:13-14, 2:2).<\/span>
\n7. Scripture informs us that much more was taught by Jesus and apostles than what is recorded in it.<\/span>
\n8. Scripture nowhere teaches that it is the sole rule of faith or that what is recorded in it about early Church history has no relevance to later Christians because this was the apostolic or \u201cinscripturation\u201d period. Those are all arbitrary, unbiblical traditions of men.<\/span><\/p>\n