A Protestant View of Tradition (Retold)

Having been raised a Protestant, in a Southern Baptist Church, I can safely say that the issue of Tradition, in my life anyway, has been either greatly misrepresented, or greatly misunderstood by many Protestants. Moreover, tradition has, for the most part, simply been ignored altogether. In fact, the issue of tradition, in the Southern Baptist Church of my youth, was not even an issue. It was never mentioned nor ever talked about as far as I can recall.

I was never introduced to this thing called tradition as it relates to the Church until I became a Presbyterian. In fact, it was actually through fundamentalist Presbyterian scholars and theologians that I was introduced to tradition. The first time I ever met R.C. Sproul (in 1995) he wrote a list of theologians from the past whom he recommended I read. Three of these men on R.C.’s list were St. Augustine of Hippo, St. Anselm of Canterbury, and St. Thomas Aquinas. It was through this list and these famous theologians/philosophers that I was introduced to the Church doctrine of tradition.

But at that time, having read a few of the works on R.C.’s recommended list, I was still confused about tradition. Was it necessary? What was its purpose? What did it mean? Could it possibly be infallible contrary to so many well known conservative pastors and theologians in certain Protestant “evangelical” circles who declared that the Catholic Church placed tradition on par with the Scriptures? This is a big ‘no, no’ in certain Protestant circles. But what does it mean? These were the questions I was asking myself as I was growing in my knowledge of Christianity and Christian Church history.

Therefore, having been influenced by certain Protestant thinkers, I concluded, quite dishonestly I must add since I really never did the research and merely took what certain men said at face value, that tradition, in my meager understanding of it, was simply something that Protestants rejected altogether. At the time I thought rejecting tradition was the correct thing to do, since we as Protestants hold to Sola Scriptura, and anything beyond the written authority of the Bible is simply the ‘words of man’ and suspect. So tradition certainly was suspect.

But then I would read certain passages from the Bible which seem to declare, contrary to my position of tradition at the time, that perhaps there is something here of larger weight and importance than I had first concluded. The apostle Paul, for instance, certainly places a very high degree of importance on the tradition of the apostles. In Paul’s second epistle to the Thessalonians he declares, “So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.” (2 Thess. 2:15; RSV) In this passage Paul declares several important things.

First, we as Christians are to “stand firm and hold to.” But what are we to stand firm and hold to? The answer is, ‘the traditions that you were taught by us [the apostles].” Second, how were these traditions taught by the apostles? Well, the text says these traditions were taught in two ways. First, “by us [the apostles] via word of mouth,” and second, “by our [the apostles] letter.” Of course, “by our letter” would be the written word.

This one passage certainly raised several questions in my mind. For instance, what is the tradition of the apostles? What does Paul mean when he uses the word tradition?
The Greek word Paul uses here is paradoseis. In this context the word is plural and in the accusative case which means that paradoseis is a transmission of a doctrine or doctrines (since the use is plural), or depending on the context, it can mean the doctrine itself. However, we see in Mark’s gospel, chapter 7 verses 8-9 Jesus holds a certain contention with the notion of the Pharisees' idea of tradition.

In these verses, Jesus states, “You leave the commandment of God and hold to human tradition. Then he said to them, ‘You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition!” (Mark 7:8-9 RSV) Prima Facie this verse seems to declare that Jesus is rejecting the notion of tradition altogether. But this certainly cannot be the case for it were then Paul would be contradicting Jesus. However, Jesus is certainly using the same word as Paul, only in Mark’s gospel, the word is now singular instead of plural, but it is certainly the same word. But we must take into consideration the most basic rule of hermeneutics—context, context, context!

In Mark, Jesus is certainly rejecting the “tradition” of the Pharisees. But according to the context of Mark, the tradition that the Pharisees held to is quite different from the tradition of the apostles (as Paul describes). The tradition of the Pharisees was a tradition that was established by man, this is indicated in verse 9 when Jesus plainly declares the tradition of the Pharisees was one that is of man. How do we know this? Well, two ways; first Jesus contrasts the Commandment of God and the tradition of men (this is seen in both verses). Second, Jesus states that the commandment of God is rejected for the tradition of men. This certainly means that the Pharisees have elevated their doctrine or tradition over and against God’s commands. This is clearly sinful and would indicate that what God established is rejected for what man established.

Moreover, this demonstrates there is a difference between the two, and one is certainly established by God, while the other can only be established by man, otherwise, it need not be scorned in this passage. Jesus would certainly not scorn or warn against anything that was established by God. So the Pharisees’ “tradition” was outside of the scope or realm of the divine. By this I mean that is was not established by God. This being the case, we know it runs contrary to God’s word or commands. However, in Paul’s passage he tells his reader to hold fast to the traditions of the apostles. The big question here is what are these traditions?

If the tradition Paul is speaking of in 2 Thessalonians was a tradition established by man then Protestants, as well as Roman Catholics would certainly be warranted in rejecting it. However, as Protestant’s AND Catholic's believe, Paul was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and Paul tells his reader to hold to the traditions of the apostles. Therefore, for us to hold to this ‘tradition’ it must have been one that was established by God in the new covenant of Christ and transmitted to the apostles and thus passed on to us, the Church. Otherwise, Paul would not tell us to ‘hold to' it.

I have heard this passage from Mark used by Protestants to declare that Church tradition should be rejected because it is a tradition of man, and not a commandment of God. I purport that this conclusion drawn from these verses in Mark is simply poorly performed hermeneutics, and to hold to such a view seems to ultimately lead to big trouble when dealing with other passages such as 2 Thessalonians 2:15 or I Corinthians 11:2.

So what are we as Protestants to think about Church tradition? What are we to think about holding fast to the traditions of the apostles? What, in fact, does this mean? And can Roman Catholics and Protestants ever see eye to eye on this issue? These are but a few questions I hope to answer in a few upcoming posts. How should we, as Protestants, view tradition? These are but a few questions that sometimes keep me up at night, and I have often times posted my answers to these questions in various articles on this blog (see the left hand margin of this blog for several posts on the issue of Church Tradition).

Trinity Sunday

In the liturgical calendar, today is Trinity Sunday. Today is the first Sunday after Pentecost and is called Trinity Sunday in the Western Christian liturgical tradition. This day is a designated day to celebrate the theological doctrine of the Holy Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. While the term "Trinity" is not found in the Scriptures per se, the theology of the Trinity certainly is.

The doctrine was fully developed by the 4th century and put forth in the third ecumenical creed agreed upon by the Church. This creed is called the Athansian Creed. This creed takes its name from the influential Egyptian bishop and theologian of the 4th century, Athanasius, who was once thought to be its author. Because of its length, it is not recited in most churches on a regular basis. However, this creed is a pivotal creed in the Church in that it delineates the Holy Trinity in such a succint fashion that the theology surrounding the doctrine of the Trinity has traditionally stemmed from this creed. Here is the Creed, may it constantly remind us of who we worship, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

ATHANASIAN CREED

Whoever will be saved shall, above all else, hold the catholic faith [catholic being universal]. Which faith, except everyone keeps whole and undefiled, without doubt he will perish eternally. And the catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in three persons and three persons in one God, neither confusing the persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one: the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet there are not three eternals but one eternal.

As there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensibles but one uncreated and one incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty. And yet they are not three almighties but one almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet there are not three gods; but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord. And yet they are not three lords but one Lord. For as we are compelled by the Christian truth to acknowledge every person by himself to be both God and Lord, so we cannot by the catholic faith say that there are three Gods or three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made nor created; but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son, neither made nor created nor begotten but proceeding.

So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits. And in this trinity none is before or after another; none is greater or less than another; But the whole three persons are coeternal together and coequal, so that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshiped. He, therefore, that will be saved is compelled thus to think of the Trinity. Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe faithfully the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man; God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of the substance of his mother, born in the world; Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching his Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching his manhood; Who, although he is God and man, yet he is not two but one Christ. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking the manhood into God;. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.

For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell; rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven; he sits at the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the living and the dead. At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies and will give an account of their own works. And they that have done good will go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This is the catholic faith which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.

The Power of the Emptied and Weak is the Story of the Church

“Christians today often think that the Church needs to be powerful and well-ordered to attract notice. This is nothing less than unbelief. Think of Ruth the Moabitess, who attaches herself to Naomi when Noami has nothing (Ruth 1:15-18). Naomi went out of Israel full—with husband, two sons, everything she needed. While in Moab, she loses everything.

The Lord has made her life bitter. But precisely at that moment, when Naomi has nothing and can produce nothing, when she’s reminding Ruth that she can’t possibly produce another husband—just at that moment of utter emptiness, Ruth commits herself to Naomi, and to Israel. Naomi says, God has dealt harshly with me. He’s emptied me of everything. And Ruth says, I want your God to be my God. Somehow, mysteriously, uncannily, miraculously, Ruth finds something in a woman who has nothing. Somehow she knows the God of empty Naomi is the God of salvation.

By attaching herself to the empty widow, Ruth finds a place in the family tree of David and of David’s greater Son. Clinging to the widow with nothing, she becomes an agent for the restoration of everything.

Paul was thinking not only of Jesus and the early Church when he said, ‘God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong” (1 Cor. 1:27). That is the story of Israel, and the story of the Church.”

- Peter J. Leithart

Ten Propositions on Ecumenism & Scripture and Tradition

I have not been able to read too many blogs this week simply because my work has demandedd more of my time and energy. However, several days ago I ran into this article over at Faith and Theology and really enjoyed it. Granted, there are not too many posts by Kim Fabricius that I dislike, or that at least make me think deeper, of that I am grateful to Kim for his posts, but this article is one of his better ones, so obviously I would recommend it to anyone.

Thanks for the post Kim, and thanks go to Ben for allowing Kim to guest post. Kim should get his own blog so we can read his work on a more regular basis (hint, hint).

Another blog I now read as regular as possible belongs to a good friend of mine named Josh. His blog is called Just Musing and he recently posted an article on Scripture and Tradition. Of course this is an issue I have tackled on several occasions here at "Shadows", just look to the left hand side of my blog under the "Favorites" section. While Josh does not take a hard and fast stance in his article, it is still well worth the read. If you have a chance, go check it out.