Pratique du Shadowing: Tradition and Scripture: Meeting the Identity Challenge - Apprendre l'anglais à l'oral avec la vidéo

Catholics often appeal to 2 Thessalonians 2.15 to support the belief that both Scripture and tradition communicate God's revelation to us.

There, Paul tells the Thessalonians to hold fast to the traditions they received, whether by word of mouth or by written letter.

But many Protestants push back.

They argue that Catholics wrongly assumed that by quote-unquote traditions, Paul meant things other than what would later get written down in Scripture.

So are Catholics reading too much into this?

Are we mistaken?

Stick around, and we'll work through it together.

Hey friends, welcome back to the channel.

I'm so glad to have you here with me.

If you haven't done so already, be sure to subscribe and hit that bell notification so that you don't miss any new upcoming videos.

And if this podcast has been helpful to you, I'd like for you to consider supporting us over on Patreon at drcarlo.com with doctor spelled out.

And if you're already a patron, we want to say thank you.

Seriously, we're deeply grateful for your support because we can't continue doing this podcast without your help.

All right, let's dive in.

The Second Vatican Council and his Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum, taught that the Church,

quote, does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the Holy Scriptures alone, close quote.

That comes from Section 9.

Consequently, the Council concludes, quote,

both Scripture and tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence, close quote.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church reaffirms this in paragraph 82.

A key biblical text that Catholics cite in support of this teaching is 2 Thessalonians 2.15.

Right after speaking about the Thessalonians being saved through, quote, belief in the truth, close quote, to which they were called through the quote-unquote gospel,

Paul writes, stand firm and hold to the traditions, Greek their periodoses, which you were taught by us either by a word of mouth or by letter.

Notice that, word of mouth or letter.

For Paul, the truth of the gospel is found in sacred tradition, along with sacred scripture.

So, we shouldn't look to scripture alone to know God's revelation.

We must also look to the non-written apostolic tradition.

Both are binding.

So the argument goes.

Now, as I mentioned earlier,

some Protestants respond by saying Catholics wrongly assume that these quote-unquote traditions include truths not also contained in Scripture.

For example, Protestant apologist Ron Rhodes, in his book Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics, argues as follows, quote,

The apostles for a time communicated their teachings orally until those teachings could be permanently recorded in written form.

That comes from pages 79 to 80 of his book.

He then quotes 19th century Bible expositors, Jameson, Faucet, and Brown for support, who write this.

inspired tradition in paul's sense is not a supplementary oral tradition completing our written word

but it is identical with the written word now complete then

the latter written word not being complete the tradition was necessarily in part oral in part written

and continued so until the latter written word being complete before the death of St. John, the last apostle.

The former oral tradition was no longer needed.

That comes from their 1882, a commentary critical, experimental, and practical on the Old and New Testaments.

The late Norman Geisler and Ralph McKenzie make a similar argument, and their book, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals, Agreements and Differences.

Here's what they write, quote,

The traditions, teachings of the apostles that were revelations were written down.

There is no evidence

that all the revelation God gave the apostles to express was not inscripturated in the 27 books of the New Testament.

Close quote.

So in short, for these guys, oral tradition and written scripture are identical.

Or to be more precise, oral apostolic tradition and written scripture are identical.

There's nothing in the oral apostolic preaching, so the argument goes, that isn't also in scripture.

Okay, so here's my first response.

At least the way Rhodes, Geisler, and McKenzie present this argument, it's simply an assertion.

They assert that everything the apostles preached was written down in their inspired apostolic writings,

but they don't actually provide evidence from the New Testament to support that claim.

And here's why that matters.

If a Protestant oath is the sola scriptura, then he's going to have to justify his theological claims from Scripture alone.

So if he believes that everything the apostles preached was later inscripturated, and that belief cannot itself be demonstrated from Scripture,

well then he faces a dilemma.

Either he must reject that belief or admit that it's not binding as part of the Christian faith.

Either way, the assertion doesn't help the challenge.

Now, to be fair, some Protestants do attempt to argue for this identity claim from Scripture, and I'll deal with those arguments in a future episode.

But as it stands here, this version of the challenge doesn't succeed.

Okay, my second response.

If the oral apostolic traditions are identical to the inspired apostolic writings, Well, then Paul's command in 2 Thessalonians 2.15 becomes redundant.

Why command believers to hold fast to the oral apostolic traditions if everything in them is already in their writings?

He could have just said, stick to the written epistles.

The distinction itself strongly suggests there's content within the oral apostolic traditions that are not in their inspired apostolic writings.

Finally, the identity claim is just factually false.

The New Testament itself gives us examples of apostolic teachings,

divinely revealed truths, that are not contained in their inspired apostolic writings.

Let's look at a few of them.

In Mark 13, 14, Jesus speaks of the, quote, desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not to be, close quote.

And Mark inserts, let the reader understand

That implies the reader knows what Jesus is talking about

Yet nowhere in the New Testament do we get an explanation of what Jesus is talking about In 2 Thessalonians 2,

3-6, the very same chapter of the primary verse under consideration And the preceding verses,

Paul talks about the quote-unquote man of lawlessness and says to the Thessalonians, you know what is restraining him now.

But he never tells us what's restraining him.

It's not recorded in his written epistles.

He reminds them that he taught them that when he was with them, but he doesn't record it.

In 1 Corinthians 5.9, Paul mentions a previous letter to the Corinthians, one that we don't possess.

In Colossians 4.16, he refers to a letter to the Laodiceans.

Whether that's the epistle to the Ephesians or a lost letter, the point still stands.

There were apostolic writings we no longer have.

And if what Paul wrote was inspired, and most Christians agree it was,

well then, there were divinely revealed truths not contained in the New Testament canon.

In 1 Corinthians 15.29, Paul references, quote-unquote, baptisms for the dead.

But he doesn't explain what that means.

Nor does he say if what they were doing is good or bad.

Whatever Paul's full teaching on that practice was, it isn't fully preserved in scripture.

In 1 Corinthians 11, 34, after giving instructions about the Eucharist, Paul says, when I come, I'll give you further directions.

This comes right after Paul gave warnings in verses 27 through 30 about receiving the Eucharist in an unworthy manner

and without discerning the Lord's body.

Those further directions, therefore, would have concerned the Eucharist.

Surely a matter of divine revelation just as much as what he taught in the previous verses.

Yet, they're not recorded.

You see the pattern?

John does something similar.

In John 21-25, he says that Jesus did many other things that were not written.

100

In 2 John 12 and 3 John 13-14, he says he has much more to write, but he prefers to speak to them face-to-face.

101

Surely that face-to-face instruction included apostolic teaching, which entails divinely revealed truths.

102

Finally, Protestants themselves believe certain truths about divine revelation that are not found in the New Testament.

103

I'll just list three here for brevity's sake.

104

I plan to do a full episode on this in a future episode, so stay tuned.

105

So here are the three.

106

One, Jesus will not appear again to appoint new apostles, like he did for Paul.

107

Two, public revelations ceased with the death of the last apostle.

108

And three, there will be no new inspired scriptures.

109

These are theological truths held by Protestants to be binding for

110

Christian belief yet they're not stated in the new testament and

111

if someone appeals to jude 3 where jude says the faith

112

has been once for all delivered to the saints that's not going to work

113

because he would have to reject the epistle of jude itself

114

or at least all the verses that come after verse 3

115

since all christian doctrine would have already been delivered complete by the time they were written.

116

But no Christian wants to do that.

117

So the identity claim that the oral apostolic teachings are the same as the inspired apostolic writings simply doesn't hold up biblically.

118

Now, some Protestants, like James White in his 2024 debate with Alex, who at the time had the channel Voice of Reason,

119

respond by saying that these passages are futile as defeaters,

120

Because sola scriptura doesn't require scripture to contain everything that God ever revealed.

121

Instead, it only requires that scripture contain everything God intends future generations to believe.

122

Here's how White puts it in his debate with Alex.

123

The apostles did not address all topics, nor did they need to, nor did the Lord Jesus Christ have to address all topics in everything that he said.

124

God is going to give us what he wants us to have.

125

The New Testament does not give us an exhaustive account of every word Jesus ever said.

126

That is not an argument against Sola Scriptura, because Sola Scriptura is not claiming that we have everything that Jesus said, or that we need everything that Jesus said.

127

Now, I actually think White's counter here succeeds within the context of that debate.

128

The examples I shared earlier don't automatically defeat White's version of Sola Scriptura.

129

And unfortunately, some Catholic apologists have overplayed that hand, as Alex did in that debate.

130

But my appeal to non-written apostolic teachings wasn't to say, here are non-written apostolic doctrines you must believe.

131

It was simply to refute the identity claim.

132

And the New Testament evidence that I shared indeed does that.

133

Now, I do think those examples testified to in the New

134

Testament of non-written apostolic teachings can help us out in another way.

135

They show us the theological worldview of the apostles, and that's important.

136

The apostles were not operating with a scripture-only paradigm.

137

They lived and taught within what we might call a two-fold stream understanding of divine revelation.

138

oral apostolic teaching, and inspired apostolic writings.

139

Most Protestants admit this applied during the apostolic age.

140

They argue Sola Scriptura became the paradigm only after the apostles died, or after unwritten traditions were lost.

141

Here's my contention.

142

If that's true, and the apostles were working off of a two-fold strain view of divine revelation,

143

Well then, the New Testament passages normally used to support sola scriptura cannot possibly teach sola scriptura.

144

Take for example, 2 Timothy 3, 16-17, a favorite for Sola Scriptura advocates.

145

Paul says Scripture is inspired and profitable for making the man of God complete and equipped for every good work.

146

Many Protestants see Sola Scriptura there.

147

But Paul says nothing that would indicate he has in mind future Christians centuries later.

148

He's speaking directly to Timothy, giving Timothy instructions how to fulfill his ministry as a quote-unquote man of God.

149

This being the case, Paul can only have in mind the two-fold string paradigm of revelation, not the scripture-only paradigm.

150

And the text itself shows that Paul did in fact have this paradigm in mind.

151

In verse 15, Paul tells Timothy that the sacred writings he was acquainted with from his childhood, that would be the Old Testament,

152

instructed him for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

153

Now, how could the Old Testament have instructed Timothy for salvation through Jesus when the Old Testament never mentions Jesus,

154

at least explicitly?

155

Well, the answer is through the apostolic preaching.

156

So Paul cannot be teaching sola scriptura in that passage because he doesn't have the future church in mind,

157

and he's operating within a paradigm that includes both written scripture and unwritten inspired apostolic teaching.

158

Again, he's operating off of the twofold stream view of divine revelation.

159

Now, a Protestant might try and counter that although Paul isn't directly thinking of future generations,

160

that doesn't mean we can't extract Sola Scriptura principles that would apply to Christians in the future.

161

But that just misses the point of my argument.

162

I'm not saying that Paul can't be teaching Sola Scriptura simply because he's not thinking of future generations.

163

Rather, it's the lack of consideration for the future church along with his theological worldview of the twofold streams of divine revelation.

164

Such a view of divine revelation excludes any possibility that Paul would be laying down sola scriptural principles in the first place.

165

Moreover, if we allow for Paul's teaching to apply to future generations,

166

well then it's going to be the two-fold string paradigm of divine revelation that would carry forward, not sola scriptura.

167

So let's sum it up.

168

First, it's just simply false that oral apostolic teachings are identical to the inspired apostolic writings.

169

Second, it's true that the existence of non-written apostolic teachings testified to by the New Testament

170

doesn't automatically defeat every version of sola scriptura.

171

But third, and most importantly,

172

those non-written apostolic teachings testified to by the New Testament revealed the theological framework the apostles operated within.

173

And that framework was not sola scriptura.

174

Which means the New Testament passages normally used to support sola scriptura, like 2 Timothy 3, 16-17,

175

can't possibly be teaching sola scriptura.

176

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

177

And don't forget to subscribe to the channel if you haven't done so already For more resources, check out Catholic Answers at catholic.com My personal website,

178

corlobrusor.com If you want me to come and speak at your event, be sure to visit catholicanswerspeakers.com Lastly,

179

I'd love for you to consider supporting the overall Patreon I can't continue to do this podcast without your financial support.

180

For just $5 a month, you can get early access to episodes, watch the episodes free of YouTube ads,

181

and get access to one of my six-hour online short courses entitled

182

How to Talk About Morality in an Age of Moral Relativism.

183

You can sign up over at drcarlo.com with Dr. Spelled Out.

184

Friends, thanks for hanging out with me today.

185

I'll see you next time.

186

God bless.

✨ Vidéo recommandée

22 phrases

Vocabulaire et conseils d’expression pour cette leçon

Cette leçon d’expression orale de niveau C1 s’appuie sur la vidéo « Tradition and Scripture: Meeting the Identity Challenge ». Les mots qui reviennent le plus souvent : apostolic, written, scripture, Paul, sola. Cette vidéo contient 186 phrases et 2489 mots à répéter en shadowing. La partie parlée dure 18:11. Le locuteur parle à un rythme régulier d’environ 137 mots par minute, confortable pour le shadowing. Seuls 77 % des mots font partie des 3 000 mots les plus courants en anglais, le vocabulaire est donc exigeant.

Vocabulaire clé de cette vidéo

Les 15 mots les plus avancés de la vidéo, avec leur prononciation et leur sens :

Mot	Prononciation	Sens
apostolic adjectif	/ˌæp.əˈstɑːl.ɪk/	apostolique
scripture nom	/ˈskɹɪpt͡ʃɚ/	écriture
testament nom	/ˈtɛs.tə.mənt/	testament
revelation nom	/ˌɹɛv.əˈleɪ.ʃən/	révélation
apostle nom	/əˈpɑsl̩/	apôtre, apôtresse
inspire verbe	/ɪnˈspaɪə(ɹ)/	inspirer
paradigm nom	/ˈpæɹ.ə.daɪm/	paradigme
theological adjectif	/θi.əˈlɑd͡ʒɪkl/	théologique
epistle nom	/ɪˈpɪs.əl/	épître, épitre
preach verbe	/pɹit͡ʃ/	prêcher
fold verbe	/ˈfəʊld/	plier
testify verbe	/ˈtɛstɪfaɪ/	témoigner, attester
apologist nom	/əˈpɒl.ə.d͡ʒɪst/	apologiste
instruct verbe	/ɪnˈstɹʌkt/	instruire, enseigner
restrain verbe	/ɹɪˈstɹeɪn/	retenir

Les verbes à particule que vous entendrez

Mot	Prononciation	Sens
check out verbe		mater, regarder
hold up verbe		retenir
set up verbe	/ˌsɛt ˈʌp/	mettre en place, installer
write down verbe		noter, écrire

Des phrases à répéter

Des phrases courtes et complètes de la vidéo, à réutiliser dans la conversation de tous les jours :

Stick around, and we'll work through it together.
I'm so glad to have you here with me.
All right, let's dive in.
Let's look at a few of them.
You see the pattern?

La grammaire de cette vidéo

Les structures que le locuteur utilise le plus, avec les mots exacts de la vidéo :

Structure	Dans la vidéo
Voix passive be + participe passé — l’accent est mis sur ce qui arrive, pas sur qui le fait	must be accepted · being saved · were taught
Present perfect have/has + participe passé — une action passée qui compte encore maintenant	haven't done · has been · have overplayed

Prononciation à surveiller

Le locuteur utilise 39 contractions et formes réduites, comme doesn't, can't, don't. Prononcez-les sous leur forme courte, telles que vous les entendez.

Les sons « th »: theological /θi.əˈlɑd͡ʒɪkl/, unworthy /ʌnˈwɝði/, oath /ˈoʊθ/
Les sons « sh » et « zh »: revelation /ˌɹɛv.əˈleɪ.ʃən/, assertion /əˈsɜɹʃən/, salvation /sælˈveɪ.ʃn̩/, devotion /dɪˈvoʊʃən/, contention /kənˈtɛnʃən/
Mots longs — placez bien l’accent: apostolic /ˌæp.əˈstɑːl.ɪk/, revelation /ˌɹɛv.əˈleɪ.ʃən/, theological /θi.əˈlɑd͡ʒɪkl/, apologist /əˈpɒl.ə.d͡ʒɪst/, inscripturated /ɪnˈskɹɪp.t͡ʃəˌɹeɪt.ɪd/

Les sons difficiles pour les francophones :

/tʃ/ et /dʒ/ — à ne pas adoucir en « ch » et « j »: scripture /ˈskɹɪpt͡ʃɚ/, theological /θi.əˈlɑd͡ʒɪkl/, preach /pɹit͡ʃ/, apologist /əˈpɒl.ə.d͡ʒɪst/, inscripturated /ɪnˈskɹɪp.t͡ʃəˌɹeɪt.ɪd/
/r/ anglais — langue recourbée, sans frotter la gorge: scripture /ˈskɹɪpt͡ʃɚ/, revelation /ˌɹɛv.əˈleɪ.ʃən/, inspire /ɪnˈspaɪə(ɹ)/, paradigm /ˈpæɹ.ə.daɪm/, preach /pɹit͡ʃ/

Comment s’entraîner avec cette vidéo

Écoutez la vidéo en entier une fois sans parler et notez les mots que vous ne connaissez pas.
Répétez phrase par phrase à vitesse normale, en reprenant chacune jusqu’à ce que votre rythme corresponde à celui du locuteur.
Enregistrez-vous et comparez avec l’original, en faisant attention à des mots comme apostolic, scripture, testament.

Qu'est-ce que la technique du Shadowing ?

Le Shadowing est une technique d'apprentissage des langues fondée sur la science, développée à l'origine pour la formation des interprètes professionnels. Le principe est simple mais puissant : vous écoutez de l'anglais natif et le répétez immédiatement à voix haute — comme une ombre suivant le locuteur avec un décalage de 1 à 2 secondes. Les recherches montrent une amélioration significative de la précision de la prononciation, de l'intonation, du rythme, des liaisons, de la compréhension orale et de la fluidité.

Technique du shadowing : lire le guide complet étape par étape →

Pratique du Shadowing: Tradition and Scripture: Meeting the Identity Challenge - Apprendre l'anglais à l'oral avec la vidéo

2026 09 06 Reflection 127

How Bible Scholars Challenged my Christian Faith

Is "Queen of Heaven" a Demon?

God gives us what we ask for — for better or worse. | John Lennox at UCLA

IELTS Tutor Session: Can Traditions Survive Globalisation?

폴워셔2

Drinking the Blood of Christ - Bishop Barron's Sunday Sermon

Beyond Differences

NT Wright on Jordan Peterson: "I have never met him, but..."

How the Gospel Confronts Easy Believism and Legalism - Tim Keller

Will the Good of the Other – Bishop Barron's Sunday Sermon

God is a Delusion | Oxford Union Speech - Alex O'Connor