I made the following comment … [LIST]
You are of the opinion that that Christians are to follow the Scriptures alone as their sole source of Christian truth (sola Scriptura). But then why does Saint Paul tell us to follow both the Scriptures and the oral word in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 … “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” Isn’t Paul adding something else to follow in addition to the Bible? Yes he is, because the doctrine of sola Scriptura is an erroneous doctrine.
[/LIST]… and was rebuked with the following …
First, it is most clear from the Scripture (When it comes down to “proving all things” the Acts 17:11 example makes it very difficult to support “oral or extra-biblical traditions of men” that are not also supported within scripture. According to Acts 17:11 if you can’t prove from scripture what someone tells you orally then scripture trumps oral tradition.) that the Bible itself declares we are to go by its contents. That alone should settle the issue.
Second, Paul in the citation from 2 Thessalonians 2:15 lends absolutely no support to the false doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church which places unwritten tradition allegedly preserved by the Roman Catholic Church on an equal footing with Scripture.
This is so because the Roman Catholic Church is committing the fallacy of equivocation in logic when that church speaks of “tradition.” In Roman Catholic terminology tradition represents continuing development of Christian doctrine through the centuries since the founding of the Roman Catholic Church.
This itself is absolutely contrary to the teaching of Scripture found in Jude’s epistle, where Jude speaks of earnestly contending “for the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3). The Greek text is absolutely emphatic that the truth was delivered (as a complete and final package not to be added to or changed afterward) once for all (a Greek term used only a few times in the New Testament).
But there is another meaning lurking in the discussion of tradition–namely, that it supposedly has reference to teachings of the Apostles of Christ which were not written down, but the Roman Catholic Church has preserved to this day. This use of the term “tradition” has no necessary reference to the doctrine of the development of Christian doctrine as tradition over time.
Neither of these meanings for “tradition” corresponds to the meaning of the term “tradition” used by the Apostle Paul in the citation from 2 Thessalonians 2:15. The term used in this Scripture passage has reference to the content of the oral teaching which the Thessalonians heard when Paul was present with them as recorded in the historical account recorded in the book of Acts.
This last Biblical meaning of the term has no necessary connection with the other two meanings used by the Roman Catholic Church.
“Scripture trumps oral tradition.” Furthermore, there is ABSOLUTELY NO EXTANT RECORD of any oral tradition that comes from the New Testament apostolic period which contains the words of Jesus Christ Himself or his immediate Apostles.
If you think otherwise, kindly furnish me one or two bona fide recorded statements made by Jesus Christ during His earthly ministry which are preserved outside of the record we have in the New Testament.
I suspect that “tradition” in the Roman Catholic sense is somewhat like a mysterious black box, the contents of which are undocumented and undocumentable, somewhat reminiscent of the nursery rhyme, which says in part, “Nothing in it, nothing in it, but the binding 'round it.”
… Can anyone help me formulate a reply? Thanks in advance.