As frustratingly common as it is, throwing in a random Bible verse as if it grants you instant victory is really poor form. It's not only lazy, the one doing it assumes the verse is so powerful that no sane observer could disagree with you having read it. In this article, I am responding to a specific person who did just that in response to a post on God Squad Apologetics regarding Catholicism's non-existence in the Bible, and the resulting Catholic reliance on tradition to prove their doctrines. The verse: 2 Thessalonians 2:15. Let's take a look at it.
"Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle."
Now, this verse does speak about tradition. But what kind of tradition? There are traditions all over the world, and they have existed throughout history. For example, there was once an Indian tradition that widows would be burned on their husband's funeral pyre. Charles James Napier had a thing or two to say about that: "Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs."
Now, here is the Catholic dilemma. If they use 2 Thessalonians 2:15 to defend all tradition, they end up justifying all tradition. Not just the good traditions, but also the bad. But if you admit 2 Thessalonians 2:15 does not cover all traditions, that leaves us with the question: which traditions is Paul referring to?
Thankfully, Paul was gracious enough to answer that. The traditions which the Thessalonians were required to observe are the traditions they were taught "whether by word or our epistle." Let us first address the epistles. The epistles, of course, are scripture. 2 Thessalonians is an epistle in and of itself. No consistent Christian would ever dare say it is acceptable to reject the scriptures. If you are a Christian, you stand and hold fast to the scriptures. An atheist can tell you that much.
But of course, the scriptures were still being written at the time Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians. In fact, depending on whether or not you accept the traditional authorship dates, almost none of the New Testament (including Luke and John's Gospels) had been written yet. This is a huge deal! Paul wasn't saying "elevate tradition above scripture", or even "tradition is, and always will be, a vital part of our religion". He was saying "you don't even have all the scriptures yet, so we'll have to keep teaching you by word until God gets done revealing them to you".
But nearly 2,000 years later, we do have those epistles. In fact, Jude 1:3 tells us that the faith was delivered "once for all" to the saints. We are expecting no new covenants, no new doctrines, no new traditions and no new scriptures. What that means is that we have literally everything we need to be wise to salvation, and complete men of God, and we are thoroughly equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:15-17). There is nothing any tradition can ever offer us that the scriptures do not.
Or is there? After all, as much as the scriptures are now complete, they do still say hold fast to the traditions taught by word or by epistle. So, maybe the Apostles taught things that weren't included in the scriptures?
In some ways, this is possible. After all, there is indication that Jesus celebrated Hannukah (John 10:22-24). Paul, an especially devout Pharisee being exceedingly zealous for Jewish traditions (Galatians 1:14), probably also observed a lot of Jewish traditions post conversion (obviously shedding the not-so-sound ones as he grew in his faith). But there are two very important things to note here. First, we know that even the Apostles goofed occasionally. In Galatians 2:11-21, for example, Paul strongly rebukes Peter for compelling gentiles to live as Jews, even though they "believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified." In other words, the Apostles, Peter included, were not infallible.
But the scriptures are, and so the second important thing to note is that the Apostles would hate to preach something contrary to scripture. Where they did contradict scripture, as Peter did prior to being rebuked by Paul, they would absolutely never have been ok with us following them. In fact, in Galatians 1:8, Paul very strongly declares "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed."
In other words, the greatest tradition the Apostles ever taught was the tradition of submitting to God, mostly by studying and obeying His word. All the traditions we will ever need to obey are found in the scriptures (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Any extra traditions that do not necessarily contradict the scriptures are optional, and it is not acceptable to force them upon any human beings (e.g. Colossians 2:8). But when traditions do contradict the scriptures, woe betide anyone who observes them, and woe betide anyone who teaches them.
But therein lies the problem. The Catholic Church does teach a number of anti-Biblical doctrines. From the seemingly inconsequential traditions, such as Mary being a virgin for her entire life, to the literal antithesis of the Gospel in the preaching that atheists can go to Heaven and be prayed to, the Catholic Church is riddled with abominations to Christianity. So, how can anyone possibly think dropping 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is in any way a valid defence of the Catholic Church? Speaking as a faithful Christian, it only does more to tell me that Catholicism is a false religion no more capable of saving souls than Islam. No wonder Pope John Paul II once said Muslims and Catholics worship the same God.
"When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but by word of mouth." - Irenaeus - Against Heresies 3.2