(Posted in debate as well.)
I have doubts about the definition (redefinition) of what Paul termed "tradition" as put forth by these groups.
Premises :
Problem : Paul refers to a (nebulous) "tradition" to which we are to adhere. The ambiguity of this term I believe the Orthodox and Catholics abuse, seizing upon it as an opportunity to add all manner of un-Scriptural requirements (both beliefs and works) which they claim are "necessary"--variously, to be considered "Orthodox", not "heterodox", or even "saved", etc.
On "tradition", then : First, we have an explicitly "spoken word" tradition (Paul mentions two "categories" into which "tradition" may fall--"either by our spoken word or by our letter") which was later transmitted in a "letter"--ie, never was it thought prohibited to put "spoken word" traditions into "writing" nor vice versa (there was no intentionally hidden treasury of "spoken word" traditions).
Now, this is also the only "spoken word" tradition (explicitly expressed as such) we have later committed to a "letter"--show me if there is another, since I'm interested in knowing--so this is a rare opportunity we have to study and determine the nature of "tradition" 2 Thessalonians 3
So, the tradition transmitted (by word and deed) to the Thessalonians was that of never eating anyone's bread without paying for it, but working night and day, so as not to be burdensome, and was intended to preempt idleness. Ultimately, there was even a command issued in order to keep people in step with the tradition : "If anyone is not willing to work let him not eat."
So, the question is : does this tradition add to Scripture? Are Christians who look primarily to Scripture for their "teaching in righteousness" lacking without this "spoken word" "tradition" which was later committed to "writing"?
No, I would argue, they are not.
This "tradition" could be established independent of Paul--from Scripture alone--for it is nothing more than a reiteration of Genesis 3:19.
"Tradition", from this perspective, then, resembles that of the Jews' and their "halachot" (authoritative rulings on how to practically live the Scriptures out)--no surprise, I guess, since Paul was himself a Pharisee Acts of the Apostles 23:6.
Now, is it just by coincidence the same Greek word (παράδοσιν--paradosin) describes the "traditions" of the Pharisees (the ones Christ denounced) Matthew 15:1-9? Certainly, the Pharisees's "traditions" were wrong, but the intent is what is of import--the intent of their "traditions" was that they would live the Scriptures (where God had expressed His will for them) out.
I assert, then, that Paul's "traditions" were authoritative rulings on how to live the Scriptures out--therefore, "tradition" does not add to Scripture, which "equips us for every good work".
I have doubts about the definition (redefinition) of what Paul termed "tradition" as put forth by these groups.
Premises :
1. Scripture was paramount to Paul's doctrine, and it should be to ours as well.
To which authorities did Paul appeal when establishing doctrine? I seem to remember "as it is written".
2a. The Scripture equips for every good work.
The Torah is capable of condemning all manner of evil works "or whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine" 1 Timothy 1:9-10--a negative iteration, I assert, of the following positive 2 Timothy 3
14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whoma you learned it 15and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17that the man of Godb may be complete, equipped for every good work.
2b. God makes His will known in His Word.
"God wouldn't make His will, His instructions, known in His Word." Would you agree with this statement, or wouldn't it be absolutely bizarre if He would not have communicated His will in His inspired Word?
Conclusion: Scripture both equips for every good work and condemns every evil work--these both being true of Scripture, being twin realities, of course, would make perfect sense--nothing should be able to add to what Scripture does along these lines.
To which authorities did Paul appeal when establishing doctrine? I seem to remember "as it is written".
2a. The Scripture equips for every good work.
The Torah is capable of condemning all manner of evil works "or whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine" 1 Timothy 1:9-10--a negative iteration, I assert, of the following positive 2 Timothy 3
14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whoma you learned it 15and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17that the man of Godb may be complete, equipped for every good work.
2b. God makes His will known in His Word.
"God wouldn't make His will, His instructions, known in His Word." Would you agree with this statement, or wouldn't it be absolutely bizarre if He would not have communicated His will in His inspired Word?
Conclusion: Scripture both equips for every good work and condemns every evil work--these both being true of Scripture, being twin realities, of course, would make perfect sense--nothing should be able to add to what Scripture does along these lines.
Problem : Paul refers to a (nebulous) "tradition" to which we are to adhere. The ambiguity of this term I believe the Orthodox and Catholics abuse, seizing upon it as an opportunity to add all manner of un-Scriptural requirements (both beliefs and works) which they claim are "necessary"--variously, to be considered "Orthodox", not "heterodox", or even "saved", etc.
On "tradition", then : First, we have an explicitly "spoken word" tradition (Paul mentions two "categories" into which "tradition" may fall--"either by our spoken word or by our letter") which was later transmitted in a "letter"--ie, never was it thought prohibited to put "spoken word" traditions into "writing" nor vice versa (there was no intentionally hidden treasury of "spoken word" traditions).
Now, this is also the only "spoken word" tradition (explicitly expressed as such) we have later committed to a "letter"--show me if there is another, since I'm interested in knowing--so this is a rare opportunity we have to study and determine the nature of "tradition" 2 Thessalonians 3
6Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us. 7For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us, because we were not idle when we were with you, 8nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you. 9It was not because we do not have that right, but to give you in ourselves an example to imitate. 10For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. 11For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies. 12Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living.d
So, the tradition transmitted (by word and deed) to the Thessalonians was that of never eating anyone's bread without paying for it, but working night and day, so as not to be burdensome, and was intended to preempt idleness. Ultimately, there was even a command issued in order to keep people in step with the tradition : "If anyone is not willing to work let him not eat."
So, the question is : does this tradition add to Scripture? Are Christians who look primarily to Scripture for their "teaching in righteousness" lacking without this "spoken word" "tradition" which was later committed to "writing"?
No, I would argue, they are not.
This "tradition" could be established independent of Paul--from Scripture alone--for it is nothing more than a reiteration of Genesis 3:19.
"Tradition", from this perspective, then, resembles that of the Jews' and their "halachot" (authoritative rulings on how to practically live the Scriptures out)--no surprise, I guess, since Paul was himself a Pharisee Acts of the Apostles 23:6.
Now, is it just by coincidence the same Greek word (παράδοσιν--paradosin) describes the "traditions" of the Pharisees (the ones Christ denounced) Matthew 15:1-9? Certainly, the Pharisees's "traditions" were wrong, but the intent is what is of import--the intent of their "traditions" was that they would live the Scriptures (where God had expressed His will for them) out.
I assert, then, that Paul's "traditions" were authoritative rulings on how to live the Scriptures out--therefore, "tradition" does not add to Scripture, which "equips us for every good work".
Last edited:
