'Obey Tradition!' is LITERALLY IN THE BIBLE!

In this video Gavin Ortlund discusses whether the commandment to obey apostolic tradition in I Corinthians 11:2 and II Thessalonians 2:15 contradicts sola Scriptura.

Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) is President of Truth Unites and Theologian-in-Residence at Immanuel Nashville.

SUPPORT:

FOLLOW:

MY ACADEMIC WORK:

PODCAST:

DISCORD SERVER ON PROTESTANTISM

CHECK OUT SOME BOOKS:

00:00 Introduction
00:45 Defining "Tradition"
06:33 A Thought Experiment
10:07 Fallible Transmission of Tradition
14:12 Examining I Cor. 11:2 and II Thess. 2:15
15:59 The Ultimate Protestant Concern

[empo]

This was exactly the argument I brought in my shower fight against imaginary opponents. I am glad that I am sane for bringing that up.

[zachkrych]

Luke begins his gospel explaining why he is writing: “that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.”
So, Theophilis received good oral teaching, but something about it lacked certainty… Therefore, God inspired Luke to write.
Maybe the scriptures are recognizing the “telephone” problem early on?

[tychonian]

Your gift of clarity is truly a gift, Dr. Ortlund.

[bruhmingo]

The sola scriptura position really needs to be rephrased as scripture being the only infallible witness to the apostolic deposit.

[swilliams]

Very well articulated. Thank you, Gavin.

[davidavfgaszxu]

You are my favourite protestant apologotist! God bless you!❤😄

[KFish-bwom]

It's also "LITERALLY IN THE BIBLE" that tradition is not to be placed above the word of God in authority. Meaning that wherever tradition conflicts with God's word, Scripture is the ultimate overriding rule. This is literally how the scism between Roman Catholicism, and the reformers came about. The whole point was to "reform" the traditions of the Catholic Church which did not conform to Scripture. The Church, i.e. the Pope, pridefully refused to be held under the Infallible authority of the word of God, and that's how we ended up here, with an ever twisting and self-contradicting Catholic dogma still tieing itself in knots trying to argue against the word of God to defend the pride it has inherited.

[tategarrett]

This was a very succinct and well-put breakdown of the different kinds of tradition. Thank you!

[danb]

So Ireneaus, clement and ignatius saying the Eucharist is the real presence in writing doesn’t count? Didn’t they learn from at least one apostle?

[julesgomes]

Dr. Ortlund brings a wonderful gift of clarity to these discussions. ❤

[TKK]

The verse is to hold fast to the traditions that were taught by US, whether spoken or written. Never alludes to holding fast to the traditions that others will claim the apostles taught.

[garrettklawuhn]

The Orthodox Church teaches that the same Spirit instructed and guided the Apostles also instructed and guided the early Church and us now. Since it’s the same Spirit, the Spirit infallibly transmits the same Tradition at every time of the Church, regardless of how well individuals hold onto the received Tradition.

It’s odd to me charismatics who claim that the Spirit works the same as it did in Apostolic times, (the alleged speaking in tongues) reject this view of the Spirit’s transmission of Tradition.

[Truth_not_deception]

It’s literally impossible to say tradition is equal to Scripture… whose tradition?
This Scripture verse is used incorrectly to attempt to justify doctrine that is not supported by Scripture…
This Scripture verse can only be understood in the same way all Scripture must be understood, and that is in the context of its meaning…

[thadofalltrades]

looking forward to the Apostles Creed video

[_secret_lore]

I appreciate the sensitiveness you have to the question that people would have even as you are making a point.

[doncamp]

"Tradition" is usually the orally received teaching of the Jewish rabbis. (Matt. 15:2 et al.) Jesus was critical of tradition when it went contrary to the word of God. But Paul speaks of "tradition" in a more positive light (1st Corinthians 11:12; 2nd Thess. 2:15, et al.) Traditions were not habitual practices. They were teachings, and they were either good or bad depending on whether they agreed with the revelation of God through the Lord Jesus and the prophets and apostles.

[First_Rock]

And the 16th century "tradition" of sola scriptura is based on ... ?

[johnnygnash]

Another excellent presentation, Dr O. Thank you.

[Adam_Wilde]

I don't disagree with you fully. We should be clear about the meaning of Sola Scriptura, but also the practical application of it. One issue I think still needs to be addressed is that the apostolic tradition that was passed down is what brought us scripture in the first place. But it brought us more than the 66 books of the protestant canon. The word canon is even an issue because that is almost the wrong way to think about it. Christ didn't start a canon, He started a Church. The Holy Spirit didn't take a vacation and allow the Way of Christ and the apostolic deposit to lapse. The claim sounds like, "There was a faithful transmission of apostolic tradition which at least resulted in us accepting scripture as the infallible authority, but we get to decide when and how that faithful transmission stopped, and we get to determine the meaning of scripture without the apostolic tradition, based on our own interpretations now."
I believe the broader point Fr. Trenham was making was about the lack of perspicuity of Sola Scriptura. We are claiming Sola Scriptura, but then practicing entirely different things (women not as pastors vs women as pastors, LGBTQ+ affirming vs not, abortion affirming vs condemning, the Eucharist is the literal body and blood of Christ as Luther thought or it is symbolic as Zwingli thought, etc.). Tradition thus holds a necessary seat in the conversation, and it confuses me how the Holy Spirit would lapse this egregiously. Or, the tradition which brought us the apostle's creed, Nicea 1, etc. is correct, and there is a discernable path forward to interpret scripture and lead the church with authority that comes from scripture and correct tradition.

For example, the reason Chrysostom could talk about Mary's vainglory is because the correct tradition understands original sin in a different way than the Roman Catholic Church and resultant Protestants. The correct tradition is that Adam's sin resulted in the consequence of death for human nature. And that the Second Adam, Christ, heals that nature and brings life. Mary does not have to be 'immaculate' because she wasn't personally guilty of Adam's original sin, so she doesn't need an extra backstory to create a workaround to an incorrect interpretation. Chrysostom understands original sin differently than Roman Catholics and also differently than you do. He is pointing out that Christ heals the vainglory in His actions to honor her. Though her request was unseasonable, this is not him saying she did personally commit a sin. Chrysostom is teaching this passage to inform us on redemptive love, transforming grace, and warning us of the danger of vainglory (one of his frequent topics). This is not necessarily a good example to use to bolster your position, but I understand that you may have a different concept of original sin that confuses this topic.

[arlindodossantos]

YES! hold firm to the tradition that was taught, not every new thing under the son!