This is from my Youtube Video on the same subject. It is an adaptation and answer to a great article on Catholic Answers' website that you can check out here for comparison.
ME: So explain what you mean by “Tradition.”
CATHOLIC: The Catholic Church believes that, in addition to the Bible, we need oral Tradition to know what the Bible teaches and to know the doctrines of the Christian faith that are not in the Bible, such as the Immaculate Conception of Mary.
PAUSE: the Catholic gives two reasons for Oral Tradition:
To know what the Bible teaches (this is okay - using tradition as a helpful hermeneutic)
To know doctrines that are not in the Bible (disagree)
ME: That’s contrary to the Bible, which says that Scripture is sufficient for life and godliness. Take 2 Timothy 3:16–17, for example: “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”
CATHOLIC: Yes, it’s normal to cite 2 Timothy 3:16–17 in arguing that Scripture alone is sufficient for the Christian today. Let me explain why the Catholic Church does not agree. But before doing so, let me also clarify something about the nature of Tradition. We believe that the oral traditions passed down through the history of the Church are necessary, but it is important to distinguish between two uses of the word tradition.
On the one hand, there are many traditions in the church that are not binding on its members, such as praying the rosary. A good Catholic could choose not to use these traditions his whole life and still be a good Catholic (although one could not be a good Catholic without praying in some form). There are other traditions that are temporary and changing even though they are binding as long as they are in force. For example, there was a change in the requirements for fasting before receiving Holy Communion. It used to be all night from midnight to the time when one received Communion. This was then reduced to three hours before reception and finally shortened to one hour. The time of the fast has changed, but it is binding for Catholics to follow the rule as long as it is in force. These traditions are with a little t.
ME: This sounds like the Church having ‘authority’ over its members without necessarily claiming that these little ‘t’ traditions are ordained infallibly by God. I would agree with this from a Protestant point of view. My own church has creeds & doctrinal statements that we have to follow in order to be a member of good standing. So what’s the other kind of tradition?
CATHOLIC: It’s doctrinal or dogmatic Tradition—tradition with a big T—which every Catholic is required to believe because it is part of the deposit of faith. It includes things like the Immaculate Conception of Mary and the infallibility of the pope. If you can agree to focus on this doctrinal Tradition for a moment, we can discuss its grounding in Scripture and history.
ME: Sure.
PAUSE: In the original article, the author has the Protestant say at this point, “Even though I think the first kind of tradition is also detrimental to a Christian’s faith.” It’s conceivable that a protestant might say this… but these little ‘t’ traditions are literally everywhere. The songs you sing, the prayers you pray, the way you take up an offering or tithes at your church. These are all ‘small ‘t’ traditions, so it doesn’t make sense for the Protestant to say he disagrees at this point.
ME: This last kind—dogmatic Tradition as you call it—is an unwarranted addition to the fullness of the gospel as found in the Bible. 2 Timothy 3:16–17, which I quoted above, shows that it is Scripture that is sufficient to equip the man of God, not human traditions.
CATHOLIC: I don’t think that passage says exactly what you want it to say. Scripture certainly has the power to do all the things that this verse says. But look more closely at what Paul is saying. You will agree, I am sure, that the writings we call the New Testament were not yet collected together as Scripture when Paul wrote his second letter to Timothy. So when Paul speaks of Scripture in this verse, he is certainly referring to the Old Testament and not the entire Bible as we now have it. In fact, in verse 15 he refers to the “sacred writings” with which Timothy has been acquainted from childhood. This can mean only the Old Testament.
But if we read his words as implying that Scripture is sufficient with no need of Tradition, then he would be saying that the Old Testament is sufficient. I don’t think any conscientious Christian would want to say that we don’t need the New Testament to have the kinds of teaching and reproof that Paul says in verse 16.
ME: Oh, I agree. But we can legitimately extend Paul’s words in verses 16 and 17 to the New Testament as well. If Paul views the Old Testament as Scripture sufficient for the purpose he enumerates in verse 16, we can certainly say that the apostle would agree with applying these same words to the New Testament. It’s like if I tell you - ‘All comets are balls of ice and gas that fly through space.’ I’m not just describing comets that have come so far, I’m giving you a definitional description. This is what Paul is doing - describing “All Scripture” in a way that is definitional to things that fit in that category of “Scripture.
CATHOLIC: Sure. I agree that such an extension wouldn’t be much of a leap.
PAUSE: At this point, I’m wondering why the Catholic has chosen to use that OT argument at all if they agree that Paul could be describing the NT as well even as it is being written. Why use a weak argument that you don’t even fully agree with anyway? And now we see a pivot to Greek words.
But the word that Paul uses here is profitable, not sufficient. The normal word for “sufficient” in Greek that Paul uses elsewhere is hikanos. In 2 Timothy 3:16, he uses the word ophelimos, which is closer to the meaning of “profitable” or “useful.” Something can be profitable without being sufficient. In other words, it can be a necessary condition without being a sufficient one. In fact, that is what the Catholic Church would say. Scripture is necessary because it is the written revelation of God himself. But that does not mean that it is sufficient for every purpose.
ME: But that is not the part of the verse where protestants are getting the idea of sufficiency from. We aren’t arguing that profitable means sufficient. Verse 17 says, “that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” If a man is to be complete, he must have available to him all that is necessary for his work. Don’t you agree that this is what Paul is saying?
CATHOLIC: Your logic is sound, but the word translated in verse 17 as “complete” is artios, a word that can also be translated as “prepared.” Now, you will concede that there is a difference between being prepared and being complete.
ME: You are correct that the greek word is artios which means: pertaining to being well fitted for some function, complete, capable, proficient = able to meet all demands. In this case, it is able to make the Man of God well fitted or proficient for every good work. If the Man of God is missing key doctrines because they are missing from the bible, then it could hardly be said to make you artios or proficient.
In addition, artios is the softer of the two greek words in question here. In the very next clause the word “Equipped” is from the word exērtismenos which means to complete or to equip fully. It has the context of ‘ending’ or ‘completing’ meaning that there is no further to go - no more equipping that is to be had by, say a second source outside of the one in question - Scripture.
CATHOLIC: Well, that may be so, but I would take Paul’s meaning to be that the Scriptures are useful and profitable for equipping the man of God for God’s work, not that they were intended to be sufficient for every purpose.
ME: This is an important point you’ve made here. I notice that you’ve pivoted from arguing from the Greek words to making a claim about sufficiency that neither of us believes. Scriptural Sufficiency doesn’t mean that the Bible is sufficient to understand things like biology or astronomy, but it is sufficient for faith and morals.
CATHOLIC: Yes, that’s probably the scope of his reference. But there is an even more telling reason why we should not pit Scripture against Tradition by appealing to this passage in Timothy.
PAUSE: I don’t want to pit Scripture against Tradition - but the conversation doesn’t go this way in the article so stick around to the end and I PROMISE I’ll address this.
In these pastoral epistles (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus), Paul actually appeals to the notion of Tradition as a necessary and valuable supplement to the Old Testament, which he referred to in 2 Timothy 3:16–17.
PAUSE: Ahh here is the reason for the Old Testament argument - remember how I paused and said it seemed weird that it was even brought up in the first place if even the Catholic wasn’t fully convinced? Well here it is brought back as the TRUE thing being referred to in 2nd Timothy even though we addressed this claim earlier and the Catholic agreed that the New Testament is in the scope of the argument as well. After changing to discuss the Greek for a while, we see a return to the argument that this is only referring to the OT. This has already been covered and shown to not be true.
ME: As we discussed earlier, Paul isn’t just referring to the Old Testament. You agreed yourself. Aside from that, I don’t see anywhere in the pastoral epistles where Paul appeals to Tradition as a necessary supplement. There isn’t even the slightest suggestion that we should add something to Scripture.
CATHOLIC: No, we shouldn’t add anything to God’s revelation. But again, understand that dogmatic Tradition (with a big T) is not an addition to the pure word of God. It is God’s word handed down in verbal form from generation to generation. Some of this was then put into what we call the Bible today.
The words for “tradition,” whether noun or verb, do not occur in these letters, but the concept of Tradition certainly does. Seeing this requires a careful reading of the pastoral epistles. If we limit ourselves to quoting selected verses, we will probably miss the deeper meaning of Paul’s words. Inevitably, we must point to specific verses, but they must be understood in the context of the whole.
ME: Agreed. A careful biblical interpreter must pay attention to context.
CATHOLIC: A slow, attentive reading of the pastoral epistles reveals that Paul is exhorting Timothy and Titus to hold fast to that which they received verbally from Paul. The word for “teaching” (didaskalia) occurs many times in these letters. Sometimes, the emphasis seems to fall on the activity of teaching, and at others on the content of what is taught. In particular, 1 Timothy 1:10 seems to emphasize the content when it speaks of “whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine.”
But let’s read 2 Timothy 1:13–14 carefully: “Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.” Now the phrase “sound words” or “sound teaching” occurs seven times in the pastoral epistles (cf. 1 Tim. 1:10; 2 Tim. 1:13; 4:3; Titus 1:9, 13; 2:1, 2).
Ask yourself what the content of these “sound words” or “sound teaching” was. Was it the same as the Scripture that Paul and his hearers had available to them at that time (i.e., the Old Testament)? If it was, then the equation between these “sound words” and the Bible seems justified. But a close examination of the context suggests that it is not the Bible that Paul is referring to.
ME: Well, I agree that it was not ONLY the Old Testament. But Paul did use that extensively in his preaching and teaching. In addition to the Old Testament though, Paul is clearly referring to the gospel of Jesus when he says “sound teaching.” The five verses leading up to this passage are a summary of the gospel message and Paul's own testimony of Jesus.
CATHOLIC: I agree! In other words, the content of these “sound words” is the gospel—the good news about Jesus that Christ himself had entrusted to Paul. Even though Old Testament Scripture predicted the coming of Christ, the fullness of the gospel came to Paul by revelation, as Paul says explicitly in Galatians 1:12: “For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.”
ME: Amen! As a very educated Jew Paul understood the Old Testament, and as an Apostle empowered by Christ he had revelation of the gospel which he shared during his missionary journeys and wrote down in his letters. This revelation is what we call the New Testament - which is Scripture and thus able to make the man of God artios and exērtismenos; proficient and fully equipped.
CATHOLIC: Well but, the “sound words” that Timothy and Titus are to hold to is the verbal transmission of the gospel that Paul had taught them. He calls them “the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me” (2 Tim. 1:13). Paul exhorts them to hold on to his verbal teachings. This is exactly what the Catholic Church believes we Christians should do. We should hold on to all that the apostles taught, whether it came in writing or in verbal form. This is exactly the same thing that Paul urges 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.”
Paul is telling Timothy and Titus the same truth. He is telling them to hold and teach the truths that they heard from Paul’s mouth—things that were not yet contained in Scripture, but were passed down orally.
ME: It’s interesting that you said “not yet contained in Scripture.”
PAUSE: This is in the original article - ‘not yet contained in Scripture’
I agree with you there - the truth Paul tells them to hold on to is not “yet” contained in scripture. But they would be contained in scripture by the end of the Apostolic Age. The Apostolic age was a unique period in history during which the Apostles were empowered to write Scripture. If I understand correctly, Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox all believe that the ability to write inspired scripture died with the Apostles in the first century.
CATHOLIC: Yes, that is true.
ME: Therefore, I have no problem with the verses you cite because they were very applicable in a time when the New Testament was not yet completed. When you see Peter sharing the gospel, for example, in Acts 2 he shares from the Old Testament but also from his own experiences of Jesus which would be etched forever in the book of Mark before Peter’s death. But at that time, the book hadn’t been written yet. Now that Scripture is complete and in fact cannot be added to, that “pattern of sound words” is found in the New Testament and there is no reason to believe that there are additional Dogmatic Traditions that were left out of Scripture, as you said at the beginning of this discussion.
CATHOLIC: So would you say that Paul’s exhortation to hold to his verbal teaching no longer applies?
ME: No, it does still apply! The exhortation applies to the content of Paul’s teaching, which was verbal during the apostolic age until it was codified in Scripture. Now that the content of the verbal transmission is embodied in Scripture, we have the verbal teaching that took place in the time before the formation of the New Testament as well as the Old Testament. To hold to Paul’s teachings which were verbally made to Timothy and Titus IS to hold to the written words that we have now.
CATHOLIC: Your distinction between the content of the gospel and the process by which it came down to us is curious. Isn’t it an arbitrary distinction to say that one thing (content) applies while the other (process) does not?
ME: It’s not at all arbitrary! Here’s an example: if Abraham Licoln, for example, told us that the nation would be better off if we simply held to the words he spoke to us at Gettysburg, how would we do that? Well, they’re written down! We would read them, and pass them accordingly. There’s no reason to think that there would be some additional truth he spoke that needed to be passed verbally and couldn’t be written down. Although he referred to the ‘words he spoke’ what he’s really referring to is the content of his speech, not the fact that he transmitted the content by verbal means. The same goes for Paul - there is no reason to think that just because he taught Timothy, Titus, and many others verbally (this is obvious of course) that doesn’t mean that a verbal dogmatic Tradition exists that was, for some reason, left out of Scripture.
In fact, when Paul defines scripture as able to make the man of God artios and exērtismenos; proficient and fully equipped, it is clear he does not anticipate any critical dogmas being left out and needing to be transmitted separately.
All Glory to God!
Stephen
