Tradition: Oral and Written, 2 Th 2:15 - Sola Scriptura, Pt 3

For the Protestant, “sola Scriptura” is summed up in the following verse:

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (2 Tim 3:16-17)

For Catholicism, the tradition of oral teachings along with Scripture seems to rely upon this verse:

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

And this difference begs the question - which is correct?

Dr. Scott Hahn, a Catholic apologist, relies upon 2 Th 2:15 as demonstrated by this short YouTube video, the Bible Alone - Sola Scriptura - Dr. Scott Hahn replies. He believes it supports an ongoing oral tradition that is equal to the authority of Scripture, as understood by Catholicism. After listening to this I had a few problems with it as well as a number of questions.

• First and foremost, context is everything. For instance, the context of 2 Th 2:15 is verses 1-14, which is about the 2nd coming of Christ. So the “So then” we see in verse 15 refers back to those verses. That then means the tradition of oral teaching (“word of mouth”) in the verse was about Paul’s original verbal teaching about the 2nd coming in verses 1-14. This significantly narrows the context of the oral teaching that Paul implores believers to “stand firm and hold”.
• He then assumes that there is some sort of proof that current traditions were successfully passed down from the Apostles to today. But that seems a bit questionable since the original early church’s view of the 2nd coming of Christ was what we call today “historic premillennialism.” What I find a bit contradictory is that up until Augustine that was the “tradition” that we can glean from the early church fathers. Because of the fall of Rome, Augustine changed that view to what we call “amillennialism” today. So if the tradition from Paul was premillennialism, then what was the basis of the church’s change in its view of the end times? Certainly not tradition, right?
• I will leave it to the reader to do a quick lookup of both premillennialism and amillennialism viewpoints.
• I would also point out that the NT presents the 2nd coming as premillennial, not amillennial. (Notice I did not say dispensational)
• I would also submit that Hahn uses this narrow proof text to support all traditions handed down. I would ask the question, “Do we have all the traditions that were supposedly orally passed down through the last two millennia?” And then, “How do we know?” Were they written down as Scripture? Or are they only the ones that Protestants and Catholics disagree upon? (liturgy, magisterium, praying to saints, to Mary, reverence of relics, purgatory, Maryolgy, tradition, sacraments, penance, performing works for salvation, the definition of what salvation is, clergy celibacy, popes can speak infallibly, 5 of the 7 sacraments)
• Then there is the fact that so many of these started so much later in history, like from the 4th century and through and beyond the 11th centuries.
• Hahn’s response seems to assume that the core of current traditions have existed since Peter and Paul and expanded through the generations. Without a list, we cannot actually know that.
• It seems fairly obvious that the tradition or oral teaching would have to be justified by what was done by the Jews. Yet the traditions of the Jews were generally castigated by Jesus, which seems meant as a warning to the church against too much reliance on tradition. At least that is what we see in the Gospels.
• Hahn’s response seems to ignore the fact that the NT didn’t exist, yet. At the time of Paul’s writing of the two epistles to the Thessalonians in the early 50’s AD, there weren’t any Gospels written yet and only a few letters of Paul being circulated, which Peter would later call “Scripture”. (2 Pet 3:15-16) No one is saying there weren’t oral teachings, but that these oral teachings were written down as Scripture by Matthew, Mark, Luke, Peter, Paul, James and John. If not, then how can Scripture be infallible if it is missing major doctrines, like what salvation is?
• I also find it strange that Catholicism seems to place more emphasis on the writings of the early church fathers than on the writings of the Apostles. The early church fathers seem to have been either able to create new “essential” doctrines, or they somehow, centuries later, were able to write down these oral teachings that we have no knowledge of until they do.
• While making his case against “sola Scriptura” as not being in the Bible, Hahn added liturgy and magisterium to this discussion. It is true that the words “sola Scriptura” are not in the Bible, but neither is the word “Trinity”, yet it is presented in Scripture from Genesis through Revelations. The same can be said for the reverence of Scripture in both the OT and NT. One would be hard pressed to find liturgy or magisterium in either the OT or NT. For “sola Scriptura”, we see the importance of Scripture by the fact that they were written to “preserve” both Jesus’ and the Apostle’s messages to the church for future generations to read and understand the Gospel message. We also see that perspective supported by the early church fathers, as documented in Part 1.
• And one last point. There is a history of cultic beliefs in the early church (gnosticism, nestorianism, arians, etc.). These cultic beliefs developed their own set of traditions that took years, decades, and in some cases centuries to root out of the church. How was that possible? Scripture, both OT and NT. We know the doctrines we are supposed to believe because they are written down in the NT Scriptures. Without the sufficiency of Scripture as our standard, how do we fend off the Jehovah’s Witnesses or the Mormons? Both have modified Scripture to support their cultic beliefs. The JWs have purposely twisted their version of what they call “scripture” in an attempt to confuse true believers about who Jesus is - the 2nd person of the Trinity, and what redemption is - introducing a works based religion. Is our retort supposed to be, “That is not what the only true church tells me I’m supposed to believe”? The Mormon adds an entire new volume of so-called 'scriptures'! If Catholicism can add a set of undocumented teachings that evolved over time, then how do we refute the Mormon for doing the same thing?

Of all of these problems with 2 Th 2:15, the one question that Protestants should ask the most about is - what is that list of oral traditions that were handed down? Dr James White has asked that question a number of times and has yet to get an answer, and I think that is telling. How can we accept a “tradition” when we don’t know where it came from and who spoke it? Church history doesn’t give us that, since nothing was ever recorded. What we find are a number of extra biblical beliefs with no Scriptural support that evolve over hundreds of years. Some started early on and others started much later but they all evolved into something much different than where they started. If these oral traditions were handed down by the Apostles, why would they need to evolve? If it was supposedly an oral tradition handed down by the Apostles, it would not need to evolve. That would be considered as “adding to” the Word of God.

And concerning 2 Th 2:15, how can we trust a Scriptural interpretation when it is taken out of context and applied to all of the oral traditions that cannot even be listed? And for the ones we are told “are” traditions we find they evolved into something very different from where they started. How do we trust something when we do not know its origins? This is a terrible interpretation of Scripture, if in fact it is even sanctioned by Catholicism. Is it not the church that is required to interpret Scripture? From the Catholic perspective I don’t think Hahn qualifies as the “church”.

Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the Word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth.

Basil the Great