Audio only:
In this episode, Karlo Broussard examines another one of James White’s arguments against the Catholic appeal to 2 Thessalonians 2:15, where Paul commands believers to hold fast to traditions taught “by word or by letter.” I argue that White’s claim—that these oral traditions were a closed, completed body of revelation identical to Scripture—begs the question, conflicts with the belief that revelation continued until the death of the last apostle, and fails to fit the context of the passage.
TRANSCRIPT:
In a previous episode, I responded to one of James White’s comebacks to the Catholic appeal to 2 Thessalonians 2:15 — and I argued that it doesn’t succeed.
But — as you might expect — there’s another one.
So today we’re going to take a careful look at that argument and ask: does it work?
You can probably guess how I’m gonna to answer that. But to find out why—you got to stick around.
>>>>
Hey friends, Welcome back to the channel! I’m so glad you’re here. If you haven’t done so already, make sure to subscribe and hit that bell notification so you don’t miss any new videos. Also, I want to invite you to consider helping keep this podcast going by supporting us on Patreon at doctorkarlo.com—with “doctor” spelled out. And if you’re already a patron, thank you so much…I really am deeply grateful for your support.
>>>>
Alright!
As a quick refresher: Catholics often appeal to 2 Thessalonians 2:15 for support of our belief about Sacred Tradition. There, Paul tells the Thessalonians to: “Stand firm and hold fast to the traditions you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter.”
The Catholic argument is that both forms of tradition—oral and written—are binding.
Now Protestants have offered several responses. One we’ve already examined is what I’ve called the “Identity Challenge”— the claim that Paul’s “oral traditions” contain nothing beyond what ended up in the New Testament. You can check out those videos here on the channel. They’re titles are “Tradition and Scripture: Meeting the Identity Challenge” and “Do Catholics Get Paul Wrong on Tradition.”
In the video “Do Catholics Get Paul Wrong on Tradition,” I responded to one of James White’s versions of this argument—the idea that the oral traditions were simply “the gospel,” and that the gospel includes only what’s recorded in Scripture.
Today, I want to look at another argument he offers in defense of the identity thesis.
Here’s how White puts it in his book The Roman Catholic Controversy (it’s a bit of a long quote, so bear with me…I don’t want to mispresent him):
The underlying assumption, however, is that this oral tradition [the context reveals he’s thinking of Catholic traditions about Mary and the papacy] is somehow different or separate from the written tradition. But is this the case? Does an honest look at the context of the passage support this use by Rome? The first thing to note is that this is a command to stand firm and hold fast to a single body of traditions already delivered to the believers. There is nothing future about this passage at all. Does Paul say to stand firm and hold fast to traditions that will be delivered? Does he say to hold on to interpretations and understandings that have not yet developed? No, this oral teaching which he refers to has already been delivered to the entire Church, not just to the episcopate, not just to the bishops, but to everyone in the Church at Thessalonica.
For White, the “oral traditions” that Paul refers to is a single body of traditions already delivered to the Thessalonians, not traditions that would develop later. Let’s call this “The Already Delivered” argument.
White pressed this point again in his 2024 debate with Trent Horn. He argued that if Catholics want to claim Marian dogmas or papal infallibility are part of these oral traditions, then they should be able to show those beliefs were present in Thessalonica at that time. Here’s how White puts it:
[VIDEO]
39:14ish Remember what’s being said here. You need to recognize Roman Catholicism believes that there is a commitment of oral tradition, a body of tradition that is passed down orally outside the scriptures that is committed to the church and to the bishops. They can’t show it to us. They can’t document it for us and they’ve defined beliefs on it that were unknown in the early church and unknown to the apostles, but that’s what is behind the argumentation. And so two Thessalonians 2:15 is actually very detrimental to that because it would say, if we believed what it said, that we should be able to document any oral tradition that was given in the Testament period was given to the Thessalonian Christians. It wasn’t just given to the bishops, it was given to the Thessalonians. So there should be evidence of it. (00:40:14) Where’s the bodily assumption Mary? Where’s papal infallibility? Where’s any of these things? Rome knows there’s no evidence of these things in that time period, and therefore they never give us the documentation of where that type of material has actually come from.
Now, it’s a bit ambiguous as to what White has in mind when he speaks of a “single body of traditions already delivered.” Does he mean a closed, complete deposit of Christian revelation? Does he mean a collection of divinely revealed truths delivered up until that time but still open to addition? Or, does he mean simply what Paul taught while in Thessalonica, what’s in his first epistle, and nothing else?
I doubt White conceives of the “single body of traditions already delivered” as being a collection of divine revelation delivered up until that time and still open to addition since that in principle would block him from excluding unwritten Catholic traditions about Mary and the papacy from the deposit of Christian revelation. Just because a doctrine isn’t revealed at the time Paul pens this letter doesn’t mean it can’t be revealed later. Remember, both Catholics and Protestants agree that public revelation didn’t cease until the death of the last apostle. 2 Thessalonians was written way before then.
Consider, for example, Mary’s bodily assumption. It’s quite possible Mary was still around when Paul wrote his second letter to the Thessalonians. If so, the doctrine of her bodily assumption would not yet have been revealed. So we wouldn’t expect it to be traceable back to the church in Thessalonica, as White demands. It would be revealed later.
A similar line of reasoning could be employed for papal infallibility, another of White’s favorites. Peter was already revealed to be the rock upon which Christ builds his Church. But the implications of that—like the infallibility of Peter and his successors who continue that role of being the visible foundation of the Church—may not have been revealed to the apostles at the time Paul penned this letter. It’s possible it was revealed later before the death of the last apostles by the prompting of the Holy Spirit.
So, the idea of a body of Christian revelation open to addition at the time Paul pens this letter isn’t a favorable option for White’s argument.
What about the conception of the “single body of traditions already delivered” to be a closed, complete deposit of Christian revelation? This reading of White has some traction because in the earlier quote from his book, White explicitly rejects the idea that these oral traditions would include things to be revealed after the time Paul penned his letter.
Does this fare any better for White? I don’t think so.
First, on this reading, one of the premises of the argument begs the question thereby making the overall argument circular.
Remember, for White, the identification of the “oral traditions” with a “single body of traditions already delivered” is a premise in his overall argument for the “identity thesis”—the claim that the oral traditions are identical to the written tradition. But how does a “single body of traditions already delivered” at the time Paul pens this letter logically entail that the collection of oral traditions is identical to the inspired apostolic writings? The only way is if White conceives of the “single body of traditions already delivered” to be identical to the inspired apostolic writings.
So White’s argument so far seems to be as follows:
P1: The “oral traditions” refers to a “single body of traditions already delivered” (That’s what White says explicitly in the quote given earlier. And I take him to conceive of this single body of traditions as a closed, complete body of Christian revelation).
P2: The “single body of traditions already delivered” is identical to the written traditions. (That’s the hidden premise in White’s argument).
C1: Therefore, the “oral traditions” are identical to the written traditions (That’s the identity claim).
Now, White makes this argument to further justify his thesis that the “oral traditions” don’t include Catholic traditions about Mary and papal infallibility, traditions that he implies are not among the written traditions. As he writes,
“The underlying assumption [of the Catholic], however, is that this oral tradition [things like Marian doctrines and papal infallibility] is somehow different or separate from the written tradition.”
So, when added to the initial part of White’s argument, this continued portion can be summarized as follows:
P3: Catholic traditions—like Marian dogmas and papal infallibility—aren’t among the written traditions.
C2: Therefore, Catholic traditions—like Marian dogmas and papal infallibility—aren’t among the “oral traditions” (what White conceives of as “a single body of traditions already delivered”).
The problem with this argument is premise two: The single body of traditions already delivered is identical to the written traditions.
That premise would be true if and only if the “single body of traditions already delivered” doesn’t contain unwritten apostolic traditions, like Marian dogmas and papal infallibility. For if these Catholic beliefs were divinely revealed before Paul pens this letter, then White wouldn’t be able to conclude that the “single body of traditions already delivered” are identical to the inspired apostolic writings.
So, to get premise two White must assume that unwritten traditions about Mary and the papacy aren’t among the “single body of traditions already delivered”—i.e., the “oral traditions.” But that’s precisely the issue at hand–what we’re arguing in the first place. So premise two begs the question against the Catholic.
Furthermore, the overall argument is circular in its reasoning.
Recall, to get premise two White must assume Catholic traditions like Marian dogmas and papal infallibility aren’t among the single body of traditions already delivered, which he identifies as the “oral tradition.” But that’s precisely C2.
So White concludes that unwritten Catholic traditions—like Marian dogmas and papal infallibility—aren’t among the “oral traditions” (the single body of traditions already delivered), because they aren’t among the “oral traditions”—the single body of traditions already delivered.
That’s circular reasoning.
Now, there’s another problem with White’s argument. His conception of the “oral traditions” referring to a closed, complete body of Christian revelation at the time Paul penned 2 Thessalonians doesn’t jibe with his belief that divine revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle.
White confirms that he believes this on page 61 of his The Roman Catholic Controversy. And he re-affirmed it in his 2024 debate with Jimmy Akin, stating this:
[VIDEO]
both sides at least formally admit that the 5:05 office of apostle or Prophet ended long ago and that Revelation ceased with the 5:12 last Apostle.
If the “single body of traditions already delivered” were a closed, complete body of Christian revelation at the time Paul penned 2 Thessalonians, then Christian revelation would have ceased before Paul penned that letter, not with the death of the last apostle.
So, on this view, White has to make a choice: either a) give up his belief that public revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle to keep his conception of the “oral traditions” referring to a closed, complete body of Christian revelation at the time Paul penned his letter or b) give up his conception of the “oral traditions” referring to a closed, complete body of Christian revelation to keep his belief that public revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle.
Now, I don’t think White wants to give up his belief that Christian revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle, since he needs Christian revelation to extend from Paul’s penning of 2 Thessalonians to the death of John lest he exclude from the body of Christian revelation all New Testament documents written after 2 Thessalonians.
But at the same time White will not want to give up on the oral traditions being a closed, complete body of Christian revelation at the time Paul penned his letter because that necessarily commits him to the idea that the body of Christian revelation at that time would have been open to additional revelation. And that, of course, would mean White couldn’t exclude traditions about Mary and the papacy from the deposit of Christian revelation since those truths could have been revealed after Paul pens his letter and before the death of the last apostle.
So White’s conception of the “oral traditions” being a single body of traditions that have already been delivered—in the sense that it’s a closed, completed body of Christian revelation, puts White in a bit of a dilemma.
Alright! What about that other reading of White, the one where a “single body of traditions already delivered” refers simply to what Paul taught while in Thessalonica and what he wrote in his first epistle?
Well, this is also a plausible reading. Here’s what White said in his debate with Jimmy:
[VIDEO]
[O]ften 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is 7:49 misused at this point where Paul instructed the Thessalonians so then Brothers stand firm and hold fast to the 7:56 Traditions which you were taught whether by word that is orally or by epistle 8:01 from us but in context Paul is talking about the gospel just look at the preceding two verses which he delivered 8:09 the Thessalonians in two forms by preaching when he was with them Acts chapter 17 and by epistle which we call 8:16 First Thessalonians
Now, if this is what White means by “a single body of traditions already delivered,” then he still runs into problems.
First, the purpose of this argument is to show that unwritten Catholic traditions—like Marian dogmas and papal infallibility—aren’t part of Paul’s “oral traditions.” But, like I said earlier, even if we concede that these traditions weren’t part of the “body of traditions already delivered” at that time, that doesn’t mean they couldn’t become part of that body of traditions later. Public revelation didn’t cease until the death of the last apostle.
Second, if we restrict Paul’s teaching to only that which he already delivered up to that time, and not allow any future traditions to be included, then we’d have to say that Paul’s instruction to “hold fast” and “stand firm” in the traditions doesn’t apply to anything he or the apostles orally taught or what he or the apostles wrote after Paul penned this letter. But that’s absurd. No Christian can accept that consequent, since we all believe, again, that divine revelation continued to unfold until the death of the last apostle.
Now, White might counter that even though Paul is only referring to what he orally taught while with them in person and what’s in his first epistle, he’s articulating a general principle that whatever is taught by the apostles—whether orally or in written letters, even if in the future, will become part of the body of Christian revelation and that revelation—in both oral and written form—eventually becomes the same in the Christian scriptures.
This line of reasoning would be like how White and other sola scriptura advocates argue that Paul’s statement in 2 Timothy 3:16 that “all Scripture is God-breathed,” even though referring to the Old Testament in its immediate context, establishes a general principle that whatever ends up being within the category of Scripture is God-breathed.
So how might we respond to that?
Well, we would agree that Paul establishes a principle in 2 Thessalonians 2:15: whatever is a tradition from the apostles—whether in oral or written form, and whenever they teach it—is binding on Christians. But we wouldn’t agree with the idea that those oral and written traditions that come about between the time Paul pens this letter and the death of the last apostle become identical with each other. That’s the just the identity claim all over again. And as I’ve shown here and in previous episodes, White can’t make that claim without begging the question.
So let’s sum it all up:
White claims that Catholic traditions about Mary and the papacy can’t be part of the “oral traditions” that Paul speaks of because Paul is talking about a “single body of traditions already delivered.”
If we interpret that to mean a collection of divinely revealed truths delivered up until that time but still open to addition, then White can’t exclude unwritten Catholic traditions—like Marian dogmas and papal infallibility—from that collection, since they may have been revealed later after Paul penned 2 Thessalonians.
If we interpret White to mean a closed, complete body of Christian revelation, then the argument is problematic on two counts:
1) it begs the question
2) the idea of a closed, complete body of Christian revelation puts White in a dilemma because it doesn’t jibe with his belief that public Christian revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle.
Finally, if we interpret White to restrict the “oral traditions” only to that which Paul taught while with the Thessalonians in person and in his first epistle, then he still can’t exclude unwritten Catholic traditions from the deposit of Christian revelation, and it leads to unfavorable consequences—like rejecting everything that the apostles taught after 2 Thessalonians, whether through their preaching or written letter.
So, like his “gospel” argument, which we dealt with in a previous episode, I conclude that White’s “The Already Delivered” argument fails as a comeback to the Catholic appeal to 2 Thessalonians 2:15 in support of our belief that Sacred Tradition is equally binding as Scripture.
Well, my friends, that’s it for today! If you found this video helpful, make sure to like it, comment below, and share it with someone who might need to hear this. And don’t forget to subscribe to the channel if you haven’t done so already.
For more resources, check out Catholic Answers’s website catholic.com and my personal website karlobroussard.com.
If you want me to come and speak at your event, visit catholicanswersspeakers.com.
Lastly, I’d love for you to consider supporting me over on Patreon. I can’t continue doing this podcast without your financial support. For just $5 a month you can get early access to episodes, watch the episodes free of YouTube ads, and get access to one of my 6-hour online short courses entitled “How to Talk About Morality in an Age of Moral Relativism.” You can sign up over at doctorkarlo.com with “doctor” spelled out.
Thanks for hanging out, and I’ll see you next time! God bless.