What are the specific doctrines of the traditions to which St. Paul is referring to in 2 Thess. 2:15?
Also, where could I find the doctrines to read about them? Thanks
It helps everyone if you cite the verse.
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. (2 Thessalonians 2:15 RSV)
I do not know understand what is meant by “doctrines of the traditions.” The traditions seem to speak for themselves. Paul referenced some of these in his first letter to the Thessalonians
For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from unchastity; that each one of you know how to take a wife for himself in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust like heathen who do not know God; (1 Thessalonians 4:3-5)
But concerning love of the brethren you have no need to have any one write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love one another; (1 Thessalonians 4:9)
Paul goes on to remind them to live quietly, mind their own affairs, work diligently with their hands, not to get drunk, to be at peace…
And we exhort you, brethren, admonish the idlers, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with them all.
See that none of you repays evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to all.
give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you.
Do not quench the Spirit,
do not despise prophesying,
but test everything; hold fast what is good,
abstain from every form of evil.
(1 Thessalonians 5:14-22)
It seems like a pretty straight forward exhortation to live moral and peaceful lives.
My apologies, I should have wrote out the verse. Plus I should have been clearer. Your answer is great on the scripture part but what about the word of mouth traditions, are there specific doctrines that differ from what is written?
Consider Church doctrines such as the Real Presence, infant Baptism, purgatory, Baptismal regeneration, the Trinity. These have been or still are often controversial among non-Catholics who rely on Scripture alone for their authority because Scripture can be vague on such matters while the ancient churches, east and west, teach these in one form or another simply because this is what they’ve always and everywhere held to be true.
First, and foremost, the entire bible is a tradition. Tradition is simply that which is “handed on” from one generation to the next. Protestantism is a tradition, as are Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Some of the traditions which Paul spoke of are essentially the entire contents of the Gospels. However, the Gospels are not complete records, and tell us so in many places. As to the value of the Apostolic Tradition, pay attention to the wording of the Prologue to Luke
(Luke 1:1-4): Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed.
In these lines, we learn that Theophilus learned nothing - zero, zip, nada, from Luke’s Gospel. Luke wrote it only to confirm the apostolic teaching that Theolphilus had already received orally. The entire content - every word - in Luke’s Gospel is tradition which was handed on to him. But, Luke did not (and could not) write everything, as that must come from a living authority - exactly as Jesus founded His Church.
Doctrines and traditions are two different things. Paul is not teaching doctrine in the Letter to the Thesallonians. I think you are mixing up the terms doctrine and tradition.
The only thing we know about what Paul said orally to those in the city of Thessalonica is recorded by Luke in Acts of the Apostles. Chapter 17 records Paul’s time spent in that city.
Wow, great verse! (Luke 1:1-4): Inasmuch** as many have undertaken to compile a narrative** of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed.
It looks to me that many other tried to do the same thing as Luke but did not accomplish the whole truth or heard an incomplete oral tradition of the truth. Otherwise, Luke would have no need to write anything further. Luke is setting the truth straight by writing what was needed to be heard and verified. So oral tradition would be inline with what was written down according to Luke’s witness. I think I’m getting it, thanks:)
That helps. So what I’m seeing from this answer is the oral and written is the same info. I appreciate the help. God Bless
As to the prologue to Luke, it clearly demonstrates two things: the absolute and irreplaceable value of the Apostolic Tradition, as well as the Authority of the Church. It indicates that the Apostolic Tradition is every bit as valuable as the written Tradition, but is actually more complete. As well, where are those other writings of the “many” who attempted to document the Gospel message? The Church tested and discarded them, as they all failed in some regard.
The Church has a three pillared foundation, as Luke demonstrates: Sacred (Apostolic) Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium (teaching authority). Take away any one of those, and the truth suffers, while error enters in.
Thanks everyone for the responses. This gives me something to chew on for a while. Pax