Some Further Comments on Sola Scriptura, John Chrysostom, and 2 Thessalonians 2:15 (in response to Dave Armstrong)

Dave Armstrong and I engaged in the combox (link) on my previous post regarding the issues mentioned in the title. He has provided some further material in his original response post to me on his website, so I thought I would address some of the things he said as well as clarify my comments on 2 Thessalonians 3:6 (and obviously 2:15 as well) and what I meant when I spoke of Chrysostom's view of tradition as a way of life, rather than doctrine. DA's words will be in red. My words from the previous article will be in blue. 

Matt made a “Counter-Counter Response”. In this, the gist of his argument was to claim that the “tradition” St. John Chrysostom referred to in the passage I highlighted was only practice and not doctrine. This was his way of trying to escape my argument. He contended:

Here is where I must clarify things. I said that it might be the case that this was Chrysostom's definition of tradition in 2 Thess. 2:15, in light of his comments on 3:6. I did not put it forward as my main argument. I would actually say that 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is most likely referring to doctrine (namely, the gospel [cf. 2:14]), being passed down in two different ways: written Scripture and oral preaching in Thessalonica. Here are my original comments in my "Counter-Counter Response" on this issue:

Thus, I am not in any way "contradicting" Sola Scriptura and neither is Chrysostom. I have shown from his commentary on 2 Thess. 3:6 that he views "tradition" more in the sense of a way of life rather than ongoing, infallible, tradition in the way that Roman Catholics think of it today (whether or not this is the meaning of 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is another issue somewhat). Either that, or Chrysostom is too ambiguous on the meaning of "tradition" for either me or Dave to get anywhere in this discussion. 

Thus, I consider it quite likely that 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is indeed referring to Paul's oral preaching of the gospel (and also the preaching of Silas and Timothy [2 Thessalonians 1:1]). But again, this verse is simply showing that there were two different means by which Paul "handed down" the gospel to the Thessalonians: oral preaching and the written Word. It is one body of "tradition" so to speak, which has been handed in these two ways.

Another thing that caught my attention in this verse was Paul's use of a certain Greek preposition in this text:

"So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by (διὰ) our spoken word or by (δι’) our letter."

NT scholar Daniel Wallace lists some of the definitions of διὰ (with the genitive specifically, which is what is in this passage) (his words will be in green)

1. With Genitive

  a. Agency: by, through

  b. Means: through

  c. Spatial: through

  d. Temporal: throughout, during

(Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pg. 369)

This confirms what I said above that "by word of mouth" probably refers to the means which Paul used to "hand down" the gospel to the Thessalonians (v. 14). It is one body of "tradition", two ways of passing it down. 

Once this is recognized, Chrysostom's point is made quite clear. It is a tradition, meaning "the gospel being passed down through both spoken and written word", therefore "seek no farther". 

So, yes, while 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is talking about doctrine, this is referring specifically to the means of passing down the gospel, and John Chrysostom correctly recognized this fact. 

In St. Paul’s epistles (I noted in my first book in 1996), tradition, gospel, and word of God are synonymous concepts. They’re all predominantly oral, not written, and are referred to as being “delivered” and “received”:

1 Corinthians 11:2  . . . maintain the traditions . .  . . even as I have delivered them to you.

2 Thessalonians 2:15  . . . hold to the traditions . . . .  taught . . . by word of mouth or by letter.

2 Thessalonians 3:6  . . . the tradition that you received from us.

1 Corinthians 15:1  . . . the gospel, which you received . . .

Galatians 1:9  . . . the gospel . . . which you received.

1 Thessalonians 2:9  . . . we preached to you the gospel of God.

1 Thessalonians 2:13  . . . you received the word of God, which you heard from us, . . . (cf. Acts 8:14)

Each of these verses (with the exception of 2 Thessalonians 3:6, and possibly 1 Corinthians 11:2, which I will discuss briefly below) is referring to the gospel, which actually strengthens my argument that 2 Thessalonians 2:15 refers to the two means of the gospel being passed down, which DA essentially indirectly admits when he says that  "tradition, gospel, and word of God are synonymous concepts." Not only that, but this shows that the oral "traditions" were probably later on committed to writing (presumably 2 Thessalonians itself). Surely, Dave would not say that the gospel is not found (explicitly or implicitly) in the Scriptures. 

Regarding 1 Corinthians 11:2, there is a bit of a minor debate among the commentaries as to whether this is talking about doctrine or practice (this chapter is where the Apostle Paul discusses the issue of women wearing head coverings, thus this could be an argument for the "practice" interpretation). I think if one were to go with the "practice" interpretation, DA's argument would be fall apart. If one were to say this is talking about doctrine, then again, this is referring to Paul's teaching, not to some sort of ongoing, magisterium, which can define dogmas that are nowhere found in Scripture, like the Bodily Assumption. Speaking of which, I would be curious to know if DA thinks the Apostle Paul taught the doctrine of the Bodily Assumption to the church in Thessalonica (or any church for that matter). It is a thought-provoking question indeed which must be asked if one interprets the "traditions" of 2 Thessalonians 2:15 to include the 20th century dogma defined by Rome. 

In short, I think I have addressed DA's main points and have showed (with all due respect to DA, though) that they do not stand up under scrutiny. I appreciate that Dave has taken the time to read my material and response. Hopefully, we can continue to have a respectful and productive discussion on these issues.