What are exactly the traditions in 2 Thess 2:15?

"Traditions" is translated from the Greek word 'paradosis' which means "that which is handed over or handed down". So in the specific cases of the three verses you cited, it is referring to that which is "handed down" from or "handed over" by the Apostles to the Church which includes: the Gospel kerygma (of the crucified and risen Christ Jesus fulfilling the Law and the Prophets) and 'rule of faith', the New Covenant pattern of worship (prayers and hymns to Christ) and doctrine, and moral teaching. This transmission of course occured by oral teaching, example, and instruction at first but also came by the Apostolic writings--the Gospel narratives and epistles.

Interestingly there's no verses in the Bible which indicate that: (1) ALL the Apostolic Tradition would be ultimately written down in Scripture; (2)the oral traditions were only to be adhered to until the Canon was completely; or (3) that there would even be a fixed NT canon, let alone what the 'table of contents' of that canon would be.

However, on the other hand, the Church did indeed recognize, determine, and finally 'close' the New Testament canon as uniquely authoritative and inspired on par with the OLD Testament Scriptures. Also, the same Church, in the writings of the early fathers, took it for granted that all that was necessary for salvation, doctrine and morals could be found in and proved from the canonical Scriptures--Old and New Testaments.

Just the same, the NT is obviously not in the genre of a detailed church worship manual nor is it a systematic theological catechism. In other words, the key to correctly interpreting Scriptures and arriving at sound doctrine is in the context of the Church in which the Scriptures were given, which recognized (by the guidance of the Holy Ghost) what were the authentic Apostolic writings in accordance with it's 'rule of faith' and worship.

 

Here's some quotes from JND Kelly's EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES regarding the early patrisitic relationship between Scripture and Tradition, as well as comments I made about them on a previous thread....

 

I believe the paradosis, "tradition," is that body of teaching bequeathed by the inspired apostles to the churches, the people of God.

 

The traditions in II Thess. were the things the Apostles taught. Some were written, others were spoken. Paul's teachings were not his, they were given to him and he handed them down.

The only ones that are necessary for you and me are the ones that are written in scripture and available to us.

The CHURCH is not the means by which God is handing down tradition.

Scripture is not "formally insufficient (ie prone to misinterpretation if read outside of the context of the Church and the Apostolic Tradition.)" This puts the "church" in place of the holy spirit.

"Col. 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."

Any "tradition" that is "not after Christ" is heresy.

 

The Scriptures is meant be interpreted within the Church, where the Holy Spirit dwells. Christ promised to lead His Church into all Trurth and to remind His Church of all things and that the gates of Hell would never prevail against His Church!

Anybody with eyes and enough sense can look at Protestantism and see what the result is when you take the Church away from the mix…

InXC
-

 

Actually Jesus said:
"I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth"

Clearly Jesus is speaking about the indwelling of the Holyl Spirit in believers, not the CHURCH as an institution.

I did not bring up Protestantism into the mix. You did to set up a straw man based on the divisions over the course of history. You fail to see that Jesus said that this was actually necessary and part of his way of spearating the wheat and the tares. Protestantism, Catholicism, and Orthodoxy are all part of this.

"It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!"

Paul also pointed this out : "For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you."

 

To be more specific - there is "NO VERSE" in the NT indicating that the NT authors were telling their readers "the Bible is not complete" or "scripture is not yet sufficient" or "we are all just waiting for the Bible to be complete so we can start searching the scriptures daily to SEE IF the doctrinal positions of those we hear every day are actually correct".

RATHEr we see them "taking scripture" the actual scripture they HAD in Acts 17:11 and "studying the scriptures daily TO SEE IF those things spoken by Paul WERE SO".

in Christ,

Bob

 

Your statements are totally contrary to Scripture:

1 Corinthians 6:19-20 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

The Church is not where the Holy Spirit dwells.

 

True enough

But the Scriptures themselves don't say this--the Scriptures don't even give their own table of contents. This comes from the Spirit-led judgement and decisions of the Church collectively.

Sure it is. It's the Church that handed down the 'rule of faith' and Apostolic teaching and worship and defended the same against the heretics. It's the same Church by recourse to it's Tradition and collectively guided by the Spirit which recognized, determined, and finally closed the canon at the end of the 4th and beginning of the 5th century.

No it doesn't--the Spirit guides the Church collectively to the correct interpretation. It's not every man for himself. This lone-ranger style "Christianity" is why two or more people, each claiming guidance of the Holy Spirit, can come to diametrically opposed interpretations of the Scriptures on some key issues.

Again, he was addressing the Apostles collectively--not individual free-lancers. The Apostles are the foundation of the Church (with Christ being the chief cornerstone Eph 2:20).

 

Nor does it say that the church is to add to the body of truth throughout the ages. But , when describing scripture it says it is "inspired".

I say it was a bunch of men that God used in spite of themselves. You say it was a rich city in Italy run by a bunch of bunch of guys in funny hats that get to pick form within themselves the next guy that decides the direction of the group.

Another straw man: "every man for himself". You ought to know better. We are members, one of another. Remember, it was Jesus that said we are to "call nobody father", for we are all brothers.

You do like propping up easy targets for yourself. Free lancers? No. Free in Christ, yes.
Here is where you go wrong. In citing EPhesians 2 you see the church as the body or the habitation. It is Christ that we are in, not the instituionalized "church". The terms "In Christ", or "in whom" appears 16 times in chapters 1 + 2 alone. It is in Him we live and move and have our being.
"18 For through him (not the church) we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. 19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; 21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit."

I know it seems much more orderly to be structured like the "catholic" churches (plural on purpose because they are even split), but it is what leads to us being robbed of our reward of being led by the Spirit of God. We are better off with God dealing with this "chaos" than taking hold of it ourselves.

Col 2: Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

 

If it is a strawman, how come sola Scripturists disagree about so much?

 

When did I say that it's okay to ADD to the body of truth?

Isn't that special pleading? Since the only reason for the exact 27 book NT that you have in your hand--rather than another with differing contents like the Assyrian Church of the East (with 5 fewer) or the Ethiopians (with a few more)--is because that is what was handed down to you. If you think the men, when they were in basic agreement with each other on key issues about God, Christ, and salvation, could have been or indeed were wrong, what makes you think they were right on the canon of the NT other than your special pleading that "God use [them] in spite of themselves"? Why couldn't they have messed it up here as well--why shouldn't we really have a few less or a few more books in the NT? After all, for a good while books such as 2 Peter, James, Jude, Hebrews, 2 and 3 John and Revelation of John were disputed in various parts of the church, while some regarded works such as the Didache and 1 Clement and the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas as scripture. It all boils down to a subjective opinion on your part--that the patristic consensus could have been wrong on so many things but must have been right on the canon.

Honestly, you must have me confused with someone else. I'm not a Roman Catholic.

So are what are we to do when certain "brothers", going by Scripture alone, claim that God is not a Trinity? Or that Jesus is not co-equal with God? Or that He is not fully man? Who decides, if some brothers say Baptism and Communion are essential and others do not, who is right and who is wrong--other "brothers"? How do we determine who is right on whether or not Christ actually died for everybody or not, when both sides claim the slogan "sola Scriptura" and that they are being "led by the Spirit"?

Yet the Church was "institutional" from the start--it was a collection of visible bodies founded and led by visible apostles--appointed by a visible Lord Jesus Christ--who then appointed other visible people to continue to visibly shepherd the visible flocks and defend them against visible heretics.

 

The first straw man was "protestantism". That is such a vague statement it is easy to find fault with something in it.

This strawman is the argument he propped up that sola scriptura is "every man for himself". The fact that people who disagree with you are very confused says nothing about scripture, it only says something about the people.

Scripture teaches us that we are "members on of another" and the fact that not everyone acts that way does not diminish the truth of it. Some have decided to to use the sad state of "the church" as an umbrella to hide under and justify their running to "THE church" as their safe haven.

 

The real question is where did these traditions come from? Paul seems to say that he received his gospel directly from Jesus (perhaps at his conversion at Damascus) in Galatians 1.12 or did he receieve it from other believer in some sense too?

 

Indeed it does. It says they are misguided about relying on sola Scriptura, not because there is anything intrinsically 'wrong' with the Scriptures, just that they are not meant to be used in isolation that way.

Yes, but it does diminish the effectuality of the said Scriptures

 

Good question, cowboymatt.

1. Isn't interesting that Paul uses the verb form paredwka ( from paradidwmi, "to deliver, to hand down") of paradosis ("tradition," 2 Thess 3:6) to refer to the gospel the Corinthians received and what he was delivering to them?

2. The only tradition worth following is that apostolic deposit which is preserved for us in the NT documents.

3. If we're following a tradition that doesn't correspond to what we read in the NT documents, then that tradition must be abandoned.

 

True TCG, but my question is where did Paul get this tradition.

In Galatians he makes a big deal about him not receiving things from men.

But elsewhere, especially in Acts, we do see Paul learning from people.

It is just interesting to me.

 

1. Well, Paul states in Gal 1:11, 12:

"Now I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel preached by me is not based on a human point of view. For I did not receive it from a human source and I was not taught it, but it came by a revelation from Jesus Christ."

2. I take this in reference to the gospel proper, which by the way he was defending against Judaizers in Galatia.

 

jesusrules3 has this motto under his posts, "Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason — I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other — my conscience is captive to the word of God."-Martin Luther "

I might dare take it way further, and say, Unless I am convicted by Scripture AGAINST plainEST reason — I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, OR REASON, for they ALL have contradicted each other AND THEMSELVES — my conscience is captive to the Word of God.