Scriptural Arguments for Tradition

The Light Shines in the Darkness...

1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, and 2 Thessalonians 3:6

Argument (from the R.C. perspective):

1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, and 2 Thessalonians 3:6 all teach that there are traditions that the apostles taught that are not recorded in Scripture. Thus, we must follow Sacred Tradition as well as Sacred Scripture and not just Scripture alone.

Response:

1. Protestants do not deny that God’s Word was not always in written form. The prophets of the Old Testament preached orally, and the people were expected to obey. However, toward the end of their lives, God told the prophets to put down in writing what they had been inspired to say (Isaiah 30:8, Jeremiah 36:2). In the same way, the apostles preached orally at first, but toward the end of their lives, they placed in writing what they preached and taught so that their teachings would be accurately preserved (Luke 1:1-4, John 20:30-31, Revelation 1:11). One of the church fathers, Irenaeus, gives us this insight:

“We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.” -Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-60.htm#P7304_1939792

2. The traditions that Paul spoke of were merely the proclamation of the Gospel of God. He records the contents of these traditions in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8:

“Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.” -1 Corinthians 15:1-8

3. Even if the traditions in the passages cited by Roman Catholics were different from those of 1 Corinthians 15:1-8, the Roman Catholic cannot tell us what the exact content of these ‘traditions’ in those passages are. He/She has no way of proving that the traditions that he/she holds today are the same ones being spoken of in Paul’s letters.

4. Unlike Scripture, oral tradition has no way of being verified as apostolic. In fact, many traditions in the early church (that were said to be apostolic) actually contradicted each other (the date of Easter, baptizing heretics, triple emersion baptism, praying toward the east, etc.) [See the The Contradictions of ‘Apostolic’ Tradition article.]

5. The Roman Catholic Church has never given a dogmatic meaning of these passages. Thus, the Roman Catholic apologist is actually using his/her private judgment to interpret this passage.

Matthew 2:23, 2 Timothy 3:8, Jude 14-15

Argument (from the R.C. perspective):

Matthew 2:23, 2 Timothy 3:8, Jude 14-15 all allude to oral traditions that were separate from Sacred Scripture. Thus, we must follow Sacred Tradition as well as Sacred Scripture and not just Scripture alone.

Response:

1. The argument commits the fallacy of equivocation. It equates Sacred Tradition (part of God’s Divine Revelation) and all historical traditions (uninspired).

2. Jude 14-15 cites the Book of Enoch which pretends to have been written by the Enoch of Genesis 5. However, it was likely written during the intertestamental period, the era of Jewish history after the death of the last prophet. That alone nullifies its claim to be a canonical book. However, that does not mean that the Book of Enoch does not contain some truth. Paul cites a pagan Greek poet and calls him a ‘prophet’:

“One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” This testimony is true...” –Titus 1:12-13

Obviously, Paul didn’t mean that Epimenides received revelation from God but that he told something that was factually true. The Book of Enoch uses the word ‘prophesied’ in the same way. The fact that the LORD will come with His angels to judge the wicked is a fact that was foretold by the Old Testament Prophets (Daniel 7:9-12).

3. 2 Timothy 3:8 cites a Jewish tradition that names the Egyptian court magicians as Jannes and Jambres. The logical fallacy of the Roman Catholic who cites this passage is that he/she is confusing historically accurate knowledge with a Divinely revealed oral tradition. There is no way of verifying that Jannes and Jambres were the actual names of the sorcerers of Pharaoh. In fact, these names could have been made up during the intertestamental period for all we know. Just as Jude says that Enoch was the author of the passage in Jude 14-15 (when we know that he wasn’t), so Paul says that Jannes and Jambres were Pharaoh’s sorcerers. Paul’s point was to warn of wicked men who oppose the Law of God, not to authorize all Jewish tradition as being infallible and ‘God breathed’.

4. The Nazarene passage in Matthew 2:23 was actually a common interpretation of Isaiah 11:1 and/or Jeremiah 31:6 during Paul’s day. David King gives us the insight into this passage:

“Again, it is assumed and asserted by Roman apologists (without explanation or proof) that this text refers to a prophecy preserved purely by oral tradition outside of the non-canonical Old Testament Scriptures. But this has never been proven. It was the view of the early Church father Jerome (347-420) that Matthew was making reference to the prophecy of Isaiah 11:1…Archbishop Fulton Sheen also identifies the origin of the Matthean prophecy in the prophecy of Isaiah. Thus, we see that even some Roman scholars affirm that the prophetic quote given in Matthew 2:23 has its source in canonical Scripture…As noted, the Church father, Jerome, stated at least twice that the quote finds its origin in Isaiah 11:1; and recent scholarship affirms the same. Roman apologists cannot point to any such source from oral tradition. However, they would have no way of knowing that this prophecy was ever made if it had not been preserved in Scripture, and explicitly, in the Gospel of Matthew.” -David King, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, Vol. I (Battle Ground, Washington: Christian Resources, 2001), p.115-117.

All Scripture quotes are from the NASB.

Also, some helpful audio on this topic can be found at:

http://www.straitgate.com/aom/dl/98.htm

http://www.straitgate.com/webster/

Some helpful online reading can be found here:

http://members.aol.com/jasonte2/th215.htm