What Tradition is Paul referring to when he admonishes us to "hold the traditions which ye have been taught"?

If you look at the Book of 2 Thessalonians in Chapter 3, beginning with verse 6, it says,

"But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord, Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and _not according to the tradition which he received from us."

Then Paul continues in verse 10 what he's been discussing from verses 7 - 9, which concludes in 10,

"For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: if anyone will not work, neither shall he eat. 11 For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner, not working at all, but are busybodies. 12 Now those who are such we command and exhort through our Lord Jesus Christ that they work in quietness and eat their own bread. 13 But as for you, brethren, do not grow weary in doing good."

Anyway, Paul gives a few examples (of which I cannot find in my actual Bible nor my phone app Bible and for which I apologize) that basically says that whether by word or by epistle (the written documents that are letters to different churches in different countries) that they neither add nor subtract a single word of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which, in those days, they were like what we today might consider OCD, so basically extremely meticulous in memorizing the Old Testament for most of their lives up to that point, and continued to do the same thing with the Gospel or Good News of Jesus Christ.

Luke was a physician who was responsible for, obviously, the Gospel of Luke, but also, Acts, which is the chronicle of the early church and their Acts, but it is, basically from about the 8th or 9th chapter to the end, the chronicle of Saul of Tarsus who was feared as the killer and/or capture and imprisonment of the early Christians. And he was confronted by Jesus and he changed his name to Paul. But he was steeped in tradition from almost birth! A Roman citizen, a Pharisee of the Jewish church and so he was one of those who knew huge parts of the Old Testament and so when he was saying that they should stick to the traditions that he and other Apostles and disciples had taught them.

So, whomever he had told these instructions, they knew that they were to try to follow the 10 Commandments as well as you can, as well as the other 2 Jesus said, Loving one another as He had loved them, and go and make disciples of the nations of the world about the Salvation of Jesus' message which is the main part of the Gospel word, of course.

So, yeah, they took all of that into account when he said that. But the other crucial thing is that he saved them because He said that NOBODY (besides Him who had never sinned) could follow the 10 Commandments. And God basically says that there must be blood... there must be something much more than killing animals. Someone, everyone, you, me, we all have to pay with our very lives. But Jesus stepped in and said, "I will pay the bill." So "He who knew no sin became sin [even before we knew who he was!] for us while we were yet still sinners." Everybody who accepts and believes that Jesus is who He says He is, and that He died for them—for US, and admits that they have sinned, and accepts His Salvation as payment in place of us, will go to Heaven. And try to be/do the best that you can, and when you—when we slip (and WE WILL slip....a lot) admit it to Jesus and turn from or repent (say sorry), thank Him for being our Savior, and go on about your life. There are no Good people going to Heaven, only Saved Sinners. That's it.

Michael C. (MichaelTheGamer)

Hope that helps you. God Bless you and anyone who reads this.

To require a proof text for the authority of the Church is to beg the question against that authority.

Those who believe authority rests with the Church believe Scripture because of the Church's authority, not the other way around. To require Scripture to prove the Church's authority already assumes that Scripture has authority over the Church. This is the fallacy of begging the question.

That is not to suggest that the Church is in a struggle with Scripture over authority. In fact, words on a page have no authority. They have no power to give orders, make decisions, or enforce obedience. One would look curiously at a man calling "in the name of the Tax Code," while one fears the man calling "in the name of the IRS."

Rather, participants in the Church believe Scripture because it was given to the Church as a gift from God by way of the Church's authority to understand words on a page to be Scripture. This authority is also a gift from God and is understood to be perpetual because of Christ's promise that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against [my church]". It is with this authority that the Church offers interpretations of 2 Thes 2:15, not by any authority of the text itself.

For one, we could imagine that any teachings in New Testament books written after Thessalonians 2 would have contained teachings in Paul's mind when He wrote this passage.

Beyond that, Paul and the Apostles taught doctrines that are apparently not evident from Scripture to some SS adherents. For instance, the "True Presence" of Christ in the Eucharist. Very few Protestants, nearly all of whom are Sola Scripturists, hold a view that even approximates what the Early Church believed. Additionally, Trinitarian views are not in Scripture. There are hints of Trinitarian views in Scripture, but there are also hints of Mary's Perpetual Virginity in Scripture. As we've seen even recently on this site, one can read anti-Trinitarian views into Scripture as well, just as one can read anti-Marian views into it. Passages can be found which support both, so how do we know which to believe?

Interestingly enough, I think a tradition established in Acts gives us the answer. Whenever a question arises as to the truth of some doctrine, or particular nuances about it, the Apostles and their successor can call an ecumenical council to address it. Together, and guided by the Holy Spirit, they determine what the truth is of these particular matters of interest. Then, they send faithful messengers to the various churches to bring the clarifications (often called developments) of the particular doctrines to them. The Council of Jerusalem does this in the Acts of the Apostles.

The fact of the matter is, Mary's assumption excepted, you can find support for just about any Tradition clarified by councils or ex cathedra teachings of the Pope in Scripture. And it is worth noting that, while those Marian dogmas were formally defined long after the Great Schism of 1054, Orthodox Christians also have those same Traditions. That fact would lead me to believe this is one of those unwritten Traditions that they Early Church had.

Some of the writings of the Church Fathers, such as St. Justin Martyr and Saint Ignatius of Antioch, tell us about teachings that are not in Scripture. but these men were intimately familiar with all of the teachings of the Apostles, having lived at the same time as all of them. We can generally trust that what they write also comes from Apostolic teaching, even if it is not in the canon of Sacred Scripture.