Pages

Sunday, February 03, 2008

Jay Walking

Jay Dyer asks:

Explain with consistency 2 Thess. 2:15 in your system.

Steve has drawn attention to this article. Let your fingers do the walking...

So you don't get hit crossing the street, I'll repost that for you.

I’ve been asked to comment on 2 Thessalonians 2:15 regarding the Roman Catholic and Orthodox argument(s) against the Protestant rule of faith.

Our opponents state the question generally: Paul tells the Thessalonian church that to hold fast the traditions, therefore, this proves that Paul told them to hold fast to unwritten things, thereby disproving Sola Scriptura.

The argument may take several forms, sometimes embedded in a farrago of irrelevant argumentation. For example: Paul is discussing his oral traditions taught before NT scripture existed (all of his traditions, not some of them). It's not even possible that he is referring to things "found in scripture already", since many Christian teachings weren't enscripturated yet.

Others, like the Jesuits of Old asserted that the particle eite is disjunctive, indicating things that had not been delivered and those which he had written, which are not the same, but different. Ergo, “tradition” is not identical with what is “written,” and thus the sufficiency of Scripture is disproven.

By way of reply:

1. In answer to both Orthodoxy and Rome, we reply that the time of the Apostles was not the normative state of the Church. If they wish to sustain their argument, it will require them to assert, as does Rome, that somebody or some bodies must be the successor of the Apostles today in order to state contrary to our position. The arguments have proven self-refuting and question-begging.. Indeed, we enjoy watching Rome and Constantinople assassinate each other over who is the true successor to St. Peter and the Eleven. Also, why not, by the basis of this text, are you not a member of the one true, holy, Apostolic Thessalonian Church?

2. Secondly, we reply that eite is not always disjunctive. It can and does have a conjunctive force, as in 1 Cor. 13:8. Nothing can be gathered from this particle’s usage.

3. The Fathers, like Iranaeus, testify to the antiquity of 2 Thessalonians, such that it predates, at the least, the Gospel of Matthew, if we accept the testimony that he wrote first, Mark if Mark wrote first. It is inconsequential to state that Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians at that time, therefore, the “traditions” he has in view are different from those in Scripture or incomplete, as if they were not written at a later time. Such is the fallacy of the consequent in our opponents’ argument.

4. Apropos 3, to sustain the argument, our opponent would need to sustain an argument for continuing revelation as well. Are they also Pentecostals?

5. What “traditions” might Paul have in mind, assuming for a moment, that our opponents are correct? Dates of Easter and Lent? Feast days? Prayer to saints? The form and manner of sacraments like the Mass, the conferring of holy orders, marriage, etc? Marian dogmas, papal infallibility? If so, then let them produce the documentation.

6. Should they choose to argue that Paul has in mind things concerning the coming of the Man of Evil, like the date thereof, then let them produce the date and tell us to whom Paul revealed these things, and if they so produce the date, then they must admit that the tradition is not unwritten but written, proving the sufficiency of written things for faith and practice in the Church. If they cannot, then it is true that such traditions can be lost and are not, therefore, necessary for the faith and practice of the churches.

7. What if they say that these traditions are written elsewhere in other Scripture, the text does not thereby teach we are to ignore other traditions? We ask:

a. Where does this text establish the infallibility and perpetuity of those traditions?

b. What traditions might our opponents have in mind?

8. Let them:

a. Against Rome- produce an infallible teaching regarding this text.

b. Against Rome and Constantinople- show the rules by which we may adjudicate between true and false traditions and teachings. We can be true to “traditions” without the “traditions” being true.

9. The standard objection they level against our rule of faith is that it is “private” depending upon the “private interpretations” of the consciences of men, but is it not true that if they cannot produce any certain ( and infallible) rules by which to adjudicate these things, that their rule is just as private, if not moreso? We maintain that our rule of faith is public, as public as Scripture itself, and Scripture is public and clear.

10. We also maintain that Paul himself did not write this letter to particular persons – bishops and presbyters, but to all persons in Thessalonica. Do our opponents believe that these “traditions” were revealed to them all or to certain persons? If the former, how is it that the Church today must depend on the Magisterium or some general “Holy Tradition” known to the bishops themselves in detail but not the laity? If the latter, then to whom was it passed and where is the proof by which we can know this?

11. In context, he's talking about what he had taught them and to beware of a false letter.. Here's the text:

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word [of mouth] or by letter from us.

The Thessalonians had evidently been misled by a forged letter, supposedly from the apostle Paul, telling them that the day of the Lord had already come (2 Thess. 2:2). The entire church had apparently been upset by this, and the apostle Paul was eager to encourage them.

For one thing, he wanted to warn them not to be taken in by phony "inspired truth." And so he told them clearly how to recognize a genuine epistle from him: it would be signed in his own handwriting: "I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand, and this is a distinguishing mark in every letter; this is the way I write" (3:17). He wanted to ensure that they would not be fooled again by forged epistles.

But even more important, he wanted them to stand fast in the teaching they had already received from him. The word paradoseis is a transmission of a doctrine or doctrines (since the use is plural), or depending on the context, it can mean the doctrine itself. He had already told them, for example, that the day of the Lord would be preceded by a falling away, and the unveiling of the man of lawlessness. "Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things?" (2:5). There was no excuse for them to be troubled by a phony letter, for they had heard the actual truth from his own mouth already. These were truth, of course, in his previous letter.

Paul was urging the Thessalonians to test all truth-claims by his own letter - Scripture, and by the words they had heard personally from his own lips, and the only words of the apostles that are infallibly preserved for us are found in Scripture.

Here's another one: 2 Thessalonians 3:6, "In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother that is idle and does not live according to the teaching or the tradition you received from us." Look back at 1 Thessalonians chapter 5 verse 14 as well as 1 Thessalonians chapter 4. Paul is referring back to the tradition he had already delivered to them, that is, in writing. In context 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is epexegetical to 2:14 and refers directly to the gospel itself.

If this text is referring to traditions not found in Scripture as we have it, then where in the historical record are these traditions to be found so that you know that you are following them? Did Paul teach something different in the presence of many witnesses that he taught in his epistle to the Romans or the Galatians? If so, where can we find it?

10 comments:

  1. It's amazing the contortions protestants go through to try and prove that verses like 2 Th 2:15 don't mean what they actually say. Even if the "scholarly" meanderings actually have merit, what does it say about the perspicuity of scripture that you've got to jump through this many hoops to prove your point? No wonder nobody for millennia noticed that the Christian religion is based on sola scriptura.

    First we're told that if Paul taught extra-scriptural things, "Let them produce the documentation."

    Then if we do produce the documentation we are told "if they so produce the date, then they must admit that the tradition is not unwritten but written, proving the sufficiency of written things for faith and practice in the Church."

    Classic case of "have you stopped beating your wife". The questions are phrased so that however you answer, you are supposedly condemned.

    We are asked concerning holy tradition: "then to whom was it passed and where is the proof by which we can know this?"

    But does Gene's rule of faith submit to the same questioning? To whom were the holy scriptrues passed to, and where is the proof that every book of holy scripture is authentic?

    We can point to what Fathers taught such and such a holy tradition, and Gene can point to who quoted such and such a book of the bible. Stalemate all around, EXCEPT for the fact that we acknowledge that Fathers as part of our authority, whereas Gene cannot.

    We are asked: "is it not true that if they cannot produce any certain ( and infallible) rules by which to adjudicate these things, that their rule is just as private, if not moreso? We maintain that our rule of faith is public, as public as Scripture itself, and Scripture is public and clear. "

    Again, can Gene's rule of faith stand to this scrutiny? Where is the infallible list of rules by which to adjudicate what scripture is, and to decide what scripture means? There is none for a protestant, outside of their own opinion.

    Now despite the supposed "lack of rules", we hold that the rule of faith is determined by the understanding of the whole people of God. Supposedly this rule isn't clear enough for Gene, but its worked for millennia with no problem. And by definition, this rule is clearly not private in nature, unlike Gene's rule. While everything a person does has a private element, the overall attitude is decidedly not private. And it also, by its very nature promotes the unity of the church because the hermeneutic and unity go hand in hand. Unlike sola scriptura which by its very nature is divisive.

    We are told "And so he told them clearly how to recognize a genuine epistle from him: it would be signed in his own handwriting".

    Except that we don't have any writings with Paul's signature on them in his own hand. So apparently we shouldn't trust the scriptures since they might be phony.

    Think about this for a second. What might a protestant substitute for this truth-check of Paul's hand-writing? Maybe some internal witness? So why didn't Paul mention this better method? Maybe the scholarly internal evidence that a particular document was Pauline? Paul didn't mention that one either. Instead, his advice was to hold to the deposit of faith he had given them, both written and oral. That was to be the test of truth.

    If a protestant wants to argue something else is now the test of truth, firstly they need to document this new test. Secondly they need to explain why Paul didn't recommend this test. Then the protestant should tell us when this test went into effect. 10 minutes after Paul left Thessalonica? Hardly, since Paul held them to it after he left.

    We are told "In context 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is epexegetical to 2:14 and refers directly to the gospel itself."

    But what does this mean? Are we to believe that not all of Paul's theological and Christian teaching was "the gospel"? Is that what Gene is getting at? Are we therefore to believe that when Paul said "So then brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachingS", we therefore have carte blanch from Paul to disregard everything he said that is not "the gospel".

    But if "the gospel" is wider than that, and includes the fullness of Christian teaching, then what is the nature of Gene's argument, since it is lost on me.

    For me, I fail to see the exegetical argument that just because the brothers were "called through our gospel", we can therefore assume that Paul's teachings to be held to must be limited to the gospel. Frankly that is a completely unwarranted and illogical conclusion to come to.

    We are told that 2 Thessalonians was written after Matthew (How can Gene rely on an extra-scriptural tradition as an essential argument for his hermeneutic in how to interpret scripture? How Orthodox of him!) And yet, he is probably contradicting most of that elite scholarship that he finds so appealing in placing Matthew before 2 Thessalonians.

    Let's say it was written after... then how foolish and redundant of Paul to admonish them to hold to that "unreliable" oral traditions.

    We are told that the church of the apostles is not the "normative" state of the church. However, scripture knows nothing about a non-apostolic church. Quite naturally, since the scriptures were written by the apostles while they were alive. There is nothing in scripture about "Do ABC now, but when we all die, then go do XYZ". All scripture can inform us about is the apostolic church. If we need to start forming extra-scriptural suppositions about what is to happen in a non-apostolic church, then sola scriptura has immediately failed.

    We are asked: "Where does this text establish the infallibility and perpetuity of those traditions?"

    Paul says to hold to his teachings whether written or oral. In other words, he is putting his oral and written instruction on the same level. If his writings are the word of God, so must his oral teaching have been. Since the Word of God stands forever, the perpetuity is obvious.

    To put it another way, Paul said to hold to his oral teachings. No cut off date or condition is given. Therefore, we should not assume one. If you joined the church in Thessalonica 10 minutes after Paul left, you ought not doubt what the church conveyed to you as Paul's teachings. Neither should you doubt a year later, or 5 years or 10 or 20 or 50 or 500. To pick one of those cut offs is completely arbitrary. To believe what the church tells you is apostolic writings 500 years later but disbelieve what the church tells you 500 years later is oral apostolic tradition is completely arbitrary and capricious. Even more-so, since scripture never claims about itself that it is the only rule of faith.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Much of the 1st half of your comment, Anon, could have been written by an atheist. That's what cracks me up about Sola Ecclesiaist types in these arguments...

    ReplyDelete
  3. There is nothing in scripture about "Do ABC now, but when we all die, then go do XYZ".

    Rev 22:18 - "If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book."

    Clearly there is a state of "ABC now" corresponding to 'this book' and a state of 'XYZ later' corresponding to the fact that people cannot add to it.

    Clearly there is a difference in state between the Apostles who had experienced Christ directly and those after.

    Clearly the Catholic Church acknowledges this. Why did they never try to turn any of their writings into Scripture (as did Joseph Smith).

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's amazing the contortions protestants go through to try and prove that verses like 2 Th 2:15 don't mean what they actually say. Even if the "scholarly" meanderings actually have merit, what does it say about the perspicuity of scripture that you've got to jump through this many hoops to prove your point

    It's amazing the contortions Roman Catholics go through to try and prove that verses like 2 Th 2:15 don't mean what they actually say. Even if the "scholarly" meanderings actually have merit, what does it say about the perspicuity of Ecclesiastical Tradition that you've got to jump through this many hoops to prove your point.

    First we're told that if Paul taught extra-scriptural things, "Let them produce the documentation."

    Because the easiest way for you to show that Paul taught things that are not included in Scripture is for you to produce them. So, have at it.

    Then if we do produce the documentation we are told "if they so produce the date, then they must admit that the tradition is not unwritten but written, proving the sufficiency of written things for faith and practice in the Church.

    But that's the claim Rome makes, that these traditions are not written but unwritten. So, you have two claims to prove:

    a. Paul taught things not in Scripture that have been passed down. Consequently, you should be able to produce them.

    b. If you produce them, then they are written, which thereby overturns the assertion that these are unwritten traditions.

    c. Consequently, you need to provide a reason for them not being canonized as Scripture, since one of the criterion we all accept is that what is of Apostolic authority and written should be canonized as Scripture.


    But does Gene's rule of faith submit to the same questioning? To whom were the holy scriptrues passed to, and where is the proof that every book of holy scripture is authentic?


    Absolutely, you'll find the argument for the Protestant rule of faith has been made many times on this blog and this question has been asked and answered.

    We can point to what Fathers taught such and such a holy tradition, and Gene can point to who quoted such and such a book of the bible. Stalemate all around, EXCEPT for the fact that we acknowledge that Fathers as part of our authority, whereas Gene cannot.

    We acknowledge them too. We simply don't ascribe infallible authority to them the way Rome does. The problem for the Orthodox and the Catholic alike is that they pick and choose what they will accept as "authoritative" and not. For example, why does Josh Brisby find Origen authoritative as a source for the canon of Scripture while rejected Origen's universalism?

    Again, can Gene's rule of faith stand to this scrutiny? Where is the infallible list of rules by which to adjudicate what scripture is, and to decide what scripture means? There is none for a protestant, outside of their own opinion.

    But it's Rome and Constantinople that make the claim, so it's up to them to prove the rules by which they can (infallibly) know what traditions are true and which are not. We do not claim that our rule of faith is superior, only that it is on epistemic par. It's you who claim superiority. So, you're not even showing you understand the nature of the argument.


    Now despite the supposed "lack of rules", we hold that the rule of faith is determined by the understanding of the whole people of God. Supposedly this rule isn't clear enough for Gene, but its worked for millennia with no problem.


    Really? Where can I find a systemic survey of each and every Christian who has ever lived and been considered part of this "whole people of God?"

    Notice how Anonymous simply ignores all those debates through church history and to the present day.

    And by definition, this rule is clearly not private in nature, unlike Gene's rule

    If its so "public" then where are the surveys? Where are the rules to adjudicate between true and false tradition? Where is the infallible list of infallibly interpreted Scriptures?

    While everything a person does has a private element, the overall attitude is decidedly not private. And it also, by its very nature promotes the unity of the church because the hermeneutic and unity go hand in hand. Unlike sola scriptura which by its very nature is divisive.


    This is question begging. Which Church is the one true Holy Apostolic Church? Why aren't you part of the One True Holy Apostolic Thessalonian Church? What about all those subgroups within Rome alone that persist to the present day? What happens when Kiev disagrees with Constantinople?


    We are told "And so he told them clearly how to recognize a genuine epistle from him: it would be signed in his own handwriting".

    Except that we don't have any writings with Paul's signature on them in his own hand. So apparently we shouldn't trust the scriptures since they might be phony.


    Poor Anonymous can't follow the argument. The Thessalonian Church had access to that material, it is that material to which Paul is referring. Apparently, Anonymous doesn't understand one of the basic rules of exegesis: The text was written for us, not to us. Of course, it's easy not to bother with exegesis in a communion that tells you to simply do as you're told. By the way, if a Romanist, where has Rome infallibly interpreted this particular text?

    But what does this mean?

    Why don't you actually exegete the text yourself. You might also want to look up the meaning of the word "epexegetical" in a dictionary.

    For me, I fail to see the exegetical argument that just because the brothers were "called through our gospel", we can therefore assume that Paul's teachings to be held to must be limited to the gospel. Frankly that is a completely unwarranted and illogical conclusion to come to.

    A. This is an assertion, not an argument.
    B. It's an assertion bereft of an exegetical argument.


    We are told that 2 Thessalonians was written after Matthew (How can Gene rely on an extra-scriptural tradition as an essential argument for his hermeneutic in how to interpret scripture? How Orthodox of him!) And yet, he is probably contradicting most of that elite scholarship that he finds so appealing in placing Matthew before 2 Thessalonians.


    Where did I say 2 Thessalonians was written after Matthew? Apparently, Anonymous suffers from a lack of reading comprehension. Here is what I actually wrote:

    3. The Fathers, like Iranaeus, testify to the antiquity of 2 Thessalonians, such that it predates, at the least, the Gospel of Matthew, if we accept the testimony that he wrote first, Mark if Mark wrote first. It is inconsequential to state that Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians at that time, therefore, the “traditions” he has in view are different from those in Scripture or incomplete, as if they were not written at a later time. Such is the fallacy of the consequent in our opponents’ argument.


    We are told that the church of the apostles is not the "normative" state of the church.

    Where might I find a living Apostle today?

    . However, scripture knows nothing about a non-apostolic church.

    Of course, the Apostles were all alive at the time. So, you need to demonstrate that the Orthodox Church or the Roman Communion is "apostolic."

    There is nothing in scripture about "Do ABC now, but when we all die, then go do XYZ".
    I guess you haven't read 2 Timothy.

    Second, since we have the Apostles' teaching in Scripture, we follow their teachings. If you know of other teachings from them, it's up to you to provide them when asked, particularly if they differ from those found in Scripture.


    Paul says to hold to his teachings whether written or oral. In other words, he is putting his oral and written instruction on the same level. If his writings are the word of God, so must his oral teaching have been. Since the Word of God stands forever, the perpetuity is obvious.


    This is a conclusion that is not sustained by the text. In fact, this isn't exegesis at all. Care to substantiate that conclusion by the exegesis of the text?

    To believe what the church tells you is apostolic writings 500 years later but disbelieve what the church tells you 500 years later is oral apostolic tradition is completely arbitrary and capricious.

    Then where can we find the infallible exegesis of this text? All you've done here is beg the question for the indefectibility of "the Church." Which church? How do I know which Church is the one true Holy Apostolic Church? How do I know which teachings are correct and not if they conflict? Where can I find the doctrine of papal infallibility, or the Marian dogmas, etc. in Scripture, if you are a Romanist? How do you know that what the church tells you is "apostolic" tradition is, in fact, "apostolic" apart from the documentation?

    ReplyDelete
  5. EXEJESUITICAL, How does a command NOT to change anything later, indicate a change of state?

    Whether there is some difference between PEOPLE who experienced Christ and PEOPLE who had not, does not indicate a change between the Church (who pretty much always consisted mostly of people who had NOT experienced Christ in person) of the apostolic period, and a period later.

    You are confusing categories.

    ReplyDelete

  6. We acknowledge them too. We simply don't ascribe infallible authority to them the way Rome does. The problem for the Orthodox and the Catholic alike is that they pick and choose what they will accept as "authoritative" and not. For example, why does Josh Brisby find Origen authoritative as a source for the canon of Scripture while rejected Origen's universalism?


    Correction: This should read: ...why does Jay Dyer find Origen authoritative as a source for the canon of Scripture while rejecting Origen's universalism?

    ReplyDelete
  7. EXEJESUITICAL, How does a command NOT to change anything later, indicate a change of state?

    Because only a person inspired by God, like an Apostle, would be able to effect such a change. Can "the Church" just make up new material as it goes along? No

    Ergo, the state of church changed from the Apostolic state to the non-Apostolic state. What was true in one was not true in the other. If you believe in continuing revelation that is on a par with Scripture, you'll need to craft a supporting argument.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Because the easiest way for you to show that Paul taught things that are not included in Scripture is for you to produce them. So, have at it.

    Go to an Orthodox Church and ask the priest.

    a. Paul taught things not in Scripture that have been passed down. Consequently, you should be able to produce them.

    And the problem is what?

    b. If you produce them, then they are written, which thereby overturns the assertion that these are unwritten traditions.

    Assuming I choose to write them and not send them to you in an MP3.

    Even so, the command was to pass on the things taught by Paul orally. He didn't say we must or must not pass them on orally.

    c. Consequently, you need to provide a reason for them not being canonized as Scripture, since one of the criterion we all accept is that what is of Apostolic authority and written should be canonized as Scripture.

    Who said we all accept that? I don't accept that.

    Absolutely, you'll find the argument for the Protestant rule of faith has been made many times on this blog and this question has been asked and answered.

    And you'll find it answered in a standard apologetic work for Orthodoxy. Whether we accept each other's answers is a different matter. Luther apparently didn't see what you see.

    For example, why does Josh Brisby find Origen authoritative as a source for the canon of Scripture while rejected Origen's universalism?

    Presumably because his opinion about one thing is evidenced in the wider catholic faith, and his opinion about the other isn't.

    But it's Rome and Constantinople that make the claim, so it's up to them to prove the rules by which they can (infallibly) know what traditions are true and which are not.

    And you can prove the rule about how we are to recognize a particular writing as scripture? Yah right. I doubt you could even succinctly enunciate such a rule, let alone prove that it is the correct rule, and prove you've applied it correctly.

    We do not claim that our rule of faith is superior, only that it is on epistemic par. It's you who claim superiority.

    And it is superior. We both look to the same sources, it is true. But we regard the sources as witnesses to an infallible organization, whereas you regard the sources to be mere individuals spouting their usually misguided opinions.

    Any court of law could see the difference. It's like the difference between the testimony of a known liar and fool compared to the testimony of an upstanding member of society. Both testimonies are fallible, yet one has an inherent reliability that the other lacks.

    Really? Where can I find a systemic survey of each and every Christian who has ever lived and been considered part of this "whole people of God?"

    By which I guess you wish to imply that the information and records that are available and preserved may not be representative of what the common people really believed. Other than being implausible, and thus failing your own test of historical probabilities, it destroys your own position. You'll quote a few individuals, Josephus or Athanasius as supposedly helping your position on the canon as representing the common position, but the testimony of thousands of witnesses to what the Church believes, you doubt. Inconsistency at every turn.

    Notice how Anonymous simply ignores all those debates through church history and to the present day.

    Which the Church is able to resolve, unlike protestants.

    This is question begging. Which Church is the one true Holy Apostolic Church? Why aren't you part of the One True Holy Apostolic Thessalonian Church? What about all those subgroups within Rome alone that persist to the present day? What happens when Kiev disagrees with Constantinople?

    Who said I'm not part of the Thessalonian church?

    What happens when Kiev disagrees with Constantinople? If the issue is of any importance it will be worked out over time. What happens when Luther disagrees with your canon of scripture?

    Where might I find a living Apostle today?

    What makes you think having living apostles should fundamentally affect the rule of faith of the church?

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Because only a person inspired by God, like an Apostle, would be able to effect such a change. "

    The verse says nobody is to effect such a change, not that apostles are able to do so.

    Oh yes, and to quote you, your posting is invalid because there is no exegesis, blah blah.

    ReplyDelete
  10. 1. The text says nothing about passing things on orally.

    2. I'll take the fact you can't produce them to mean that you can't document them.

    3. An Apostle can add to Scripture. That's called "inscripturation."

    4. The Church was able to resolve these debates? I guess you missed all those councils that couldn't come to any resolutions in the Middle Ages. I guess you've missed those Eastern Councils where Kiev and Constantinople could not agree.

    5. You don't accept that written material that is from an Apostle should be canonized. Nice to see you out of step with the most key attribute of a text for inclusion in the canon. This says alot about your own infidelity.

    Thanks for playing Orthodox. Your inability to substantiate your position yet again is duly noted.

    ReplyDelete