Audio only:
In this episode, Karlo Broussard responds to Protestant apologist James White’s claim that the “oral traditions” in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 are simply the gospel and therefore identical to the New Testament. We examine whether that reading works—and whether excluding Marian doctrines and papal infallibility from Paul’s “traditions” ends up begging the question.
TRANSCRIPT:
Catholics are fond of quoting 2 Thessalonians 2:15 in support of the view that both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture transmit God’s revelation. There Paul tells the Thessalonians to hold fast to the traditions they received—whether by word of mouth or by written letter.
But Protestant James White says we got Paul wrong here.
So do we?
Stick around—and you’ll find out!
>>>>>
Hey friends! Welcome back to the channel. I’m really glad you’re here. If you haven’t done so already, be sure to subscribe and hit that bell so you don’t miss upcoming videos. And if this podcast has been helpful to you, please consider supporting us on Patreon over at doctorkarlo.com—with “doctor” spelled out. If you’re already a patron, we want to say, “thank you.” Seriously, we’re grateful for your support because without your help we can’t keep doing this podcast.
>>>>
In a previous episode—“Tradition and Scripture: Meeting the Identity Challenge”—we looked at a common Protestant pushback. The claim is that Catholics wrongly assume that by “traditions,” Paul meant something other than what later got written down in Scripture. In that earlier episode, we addressed a version of the argument that simply asserted this identity without offering evidence.
Today, we’re going a step further.
Some Protestants don’t just assert the identity claim—they actually argue for it. And Protestant apologist James White is one example.
In his book The Roman Catholic Controversy (pp. 96–97), he argues that the “traditions” Paul speaks of in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 are simply the gospel. Here’s what he writes:
[READ #1]
What does the term “orally” refer to? We first note that the context of the passage is the gospel. The verses that immediately precede verse 15 speak of the gospel and its work among the Thessalonians. The traditions Paul speaks of are not traditions about Mary or papal infallibility. Instead, the traditions Paul refers to have to do with a single topic, one that is close to his heart. He is encouraging these believers to stand firm—in what? In oral traditions about subjects not found in the New Testament? No, he is exhorting them to stand firm in the gospel (pgs. 96-97).
White makes the same argument in his 2024 debate on Sola Scriptura with Jimmy Akin. Here’s what he says there:
[VIDEO]
often 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
So for White, the “oral traditions” that Paul speaks of aren’t things like papal infallibility and Marian doctrines because Paul’s talking about “the gospel.”
Now, we can reasonably ask, “Why doesn’t White think these Catholic traditions are part of ‘the gospel?’”
The answer seems to be because they’re not part of the New Testament. White argues that these “oral traditions” that Paul speaks of are not “subjects not found in the New Testament.” To state that positively, White’s saying these “oral traditions” are identical to the subjects found in the New Testament (there’s the identity claim). And those subjects, for White, constitute “the gospel.”
So, if I’m tracking White correctly, his argument seems to be as follows:
P1: The oral traditions that Paul speaks of are “the gospel.”
P2: “The gospel” refers only to subjects contained in the New Testament.
P3: Catholic traditions about Mary and papal infallibility aren’t in the New Testament.
C1: Therefore, Catholic traditions about Mary and papal infallibility aren’t subjects contained in “the gospel.”
C2: Therefore, Catholic traditions about Mary and papal infallibility aren’t contained in the “oral traditions” that Paul speaks of.
Now, a Catholic might immediately want to challenge premise three and show that these doctrines are present in the New Testament. But let’s grant White that premise for argument’s sake.
So that leaves us with premises one and two.
It’s a bit difficult to offer a straightforward response to either of these premises because White doesn’t define what he means by “the gospel.” Or, to be more specific, White doesn’t tell us what he thinks Paul means by “the gospel.”
Does he mean the core Christian message of salvation about God, His Son Jesus Christ, and the coming of the kingdom, which is a subset of Chistian teaching?
Or, does White mean the entirety of Christian revelation—that body of truths revealed by Christ and apostles that God intends Christians to believe for salvation?
Our response to White’s argument depends on which meaning of “the gospel” he intends.
Let’s suppose White interprets “the gospel” in the first way—the core Christian proclamation about God, His Son Jesus Christ, and the coming of the kingdom.
If that’s what White means, then both premises one and two would be false. Concerning premise two, the New Testament obviously contains subjects that go beyond the core proclamation of God, his Son, and the kingdom.
In relation to premise one, Paul refers to traditions that go beyond that core Christian message.
As I mentioned in that previous episode mentioned earlier, Paul had told the Thessalonians what was restraining the “man of lawlessness.” That’s beyond the core saving message.
2 Thessalonians 3:6 is another example. Paul writes:
“Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.”
Which tradition is Paul talking about? He tells us in verse 10: “If anyone will not work, let him not eat.”
Apparently, some members of the community were mooching off others and refusing to work.
Now notice: this tradition isn’t presented as optional advice. Paul commands adherence to it “in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.” This is a binding tradition.
But working for a living is a matter of Christian ethics. It’s not part of the core proclamation about God, His Son, and His kingdom.
And there’s more.
Paul often speaks of “the gospel” in contexts that wouldn’t have included this ethical instruction.
For example, in Galatians 2:2, Paul says he went up to Jerusalem to lay before the apostles “the gospel” (euangelion) that he preached among the Gentiles. Surely, he didn’t intend to include within the gospel the instruction about working for a living—that issue didn’t even arise until later in Thessalonica.
Likewise, in Galatians 2:7, Paul says he was entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised. Again, this predates the Thessalonian problem of idleness.
So if “gospel” means the core saving message of Christ, then not all the traditions Paul refers to in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 can be identical to that gospel—that subset of core Christian doctrine. In other words, on this understanding of “the gospel” premise one is false. Paul commands adherence not only to “the gospel” but also to binding traditions that go beyond it. And if Paul includes traditions that go beyond the core Christian message of salvation, then he could very well include traditions about Mary and the papacy.
Thus, on supposition that “the gospel” refers to Christ’s core message of salvation White’s premises are false. And that means we can’t know whether his conclusion is true. So on this understanding of “the gospel,” White’s argument for Catholic traditions about Mary and papal infallibility being excluded from Paul’s “oral traditions” fails.
Now, perhaps White interprets Paul to mean something broader by “gospel.”
Maybe he means the totality of binding Christan revelation—those truths revealed by Christ and his apostles that God intends Christians to believe. That seems to be implied in his rejection of the idea that Paul’s oral traditions could include “subjects not found in the New Testament,” as he puts it.
For White, the New Testament contains the entirety of Christian revelation that God intends Christians to believe. That’s the basis for his belief in Sola Scriptura. So it would seem that White conceives of the “oral traditions” as consisting of the entirety of binding Christian revelation, since his argument is that these “oral traditions” are nothing more than what is found in the New Testament. And insofar as he thinks the “oral traditions” are “the gospel,” it would follow that he conceives of “the gospel” as a reference to the entirety of Christian revelation that God intends Christians to believe, which in turn White says is identical to the contents of the New Testament.
So on this reading of “the gospel,” White’s argument translates into the following:
P1: The “oral traditions” that Paul speaks of refers to the totality of the Christian revelation that God intends Christians to believe (i.e., “the Gospel”).
P2: The totality of the Christian revelation that God intends Christians to believe—“the gospel”—consists of subjects only contained in the New Testament.
P3 of the argument stays the same: Catholic traditions about Mary and papal infallibility aren’t in the New Testament.
C 1 becomes: Therefore, Catholic traditions about Mary and papal infallibility aren’t part of the totally of the Christian revelation that God intends Christians to believe.
And C 2 remains the same: Therefore, Catholic traditions about Mary and papal infallibility aren’t contained in the “oral traditions” that Paul speaks of.
So how do we respond to White’s argument on this understanding of “the gospel”?
First, premise two of White’s argument begs the question against the Catholic. Recall, it states: The totality of the Christian revelation that God intends Christians to believe consists of subjects only contained in the New Testament.
But that’s true if and only if papal infallibility and Marian doctrines are not unwritten truths of Christian revelation. For if they were unwritten truths of Christian revelation that God intended Christians to believe, like Catholics claim, then White’s identity claim between the totality of Christian revelation and the New Testament would be false. In other words, premise two would be false.
So White must assume that Catholic traditions about Mary and papal infallibility are not part of the totality of binding Christian revelation to get premise two in the first place. Since that’s the issue we’re debating, White begs the question against the Catholic.
Second, White’s overall argument commits the fallacy of circular reasoning.
Again, consider premise two: the totality of the Christian revelation that God intends Christians to believe contains only subjects found in the New Testament. On supposition that Catholic traditions about Mary and papal infallibility aren’t found in the New Testament, premise two is logically identical to saying Catholic traditions about Mary and papal infallibility aren’t part of the totality of Christian revelation that God intends Christians to believe. But that’s precisely conclusion 1 of White’s argument.
Thus, White must assume that these Catholic doctrines aren’t divinely revealed truths that God intends us to believe to arrive at his conclusion that these doctrines aren’t part of the deposit of Christian revelation that God intends us to believe—that’s to say, they aren’t part of “the gospel” or the “oral traditions.”
To state it differently, White concludes that Catholic traditions about Mary and papal infallibility aren’t part of the totality of binding Christian revelation because they aren’t part of the totality of binding Christian revelation.
My friends, that’s circular reasoning.
So, on supposition that White interprets “the gospel” as referring to the totality of the Christian revelation that God intends Christians to believe, premise two of his argument begs the question against the Catholic and the overall argument is circular in its reasoning.
So here’s where we end up.
Unlike some Protestants who merely assert the identity claim, White actually offers a reason: Paul is talking about “the gospel.”
When “the gospel” is interpreted as the core saving message, the premises of White’s argument become false and thereby make the argument unsound.
When “the gospel” is interpreted as the totality of binding Christian revelation, premise two of his argument begs the question against the Catholic and the overall argument is circular in its reasoning.
Now, there are still a few more arguments out there in support of the identity claim—some from White himself.
But we’ll save those for another episode.
Well, my friends, that’s it for today. If you found this video helpful, be sure to like it, comment below, and share it with someone who might benefit. And don’t forget to subscribe if you haven’t already.
For more resources, check out catholic.com and my personal website karlobroussard.com.
If you’d like me to speak at your event, visit catholicanswersspeakers.com.
And please consider supporting this work on Patreon. For just $5 a month, you’ll get early access to episodes, ad-free viewing, and access to my six-hour online course, How to Talk About Morality in an Age of Moral Relativism. You can sign up at doctorkarlo.com—with “doctor” spelled out.
Thanks for hanging out with me.
I’ll see you next time.
God bless.