Prayer Warrior
Well-Known Member
Human Traditions Nullify the Word of God (by Brian Schwertley)
Having noted how papal apologists completely redefine the word “tradition” (when used in a positive sense) to suit their own corrupt presuppositions, we will now turn our attention tothe Bible’s unequivocal condemnation of tradition as a source of authority. This examination will involve a refutation of Romanist attempts to refute the standard Reformed Protestant use of the anti-tradition texts.
In the whole Bible there was no greater opponent of human traditions in the religious sphere than Jesus Christ Himself. In the sermon of the mount our Lord spends a great deal of time refuting Pharisaical additions to the Law of Moses (Mt. 5:17-48). There were also direct confrontations with the Jewish religious leaders over their additions to written revelation. In these confrontations our Lord strongly condemned tradition as a rule for religious authority and exalted the Word of God. “The Pharisees and Scribes asked him, ‘Why do not thy disciples walk according to the tradition of the ancients...?’ But answering he said to them, ‘...in vain do theyworship me, teaching as doctrine the precepts of men. For letting go the commandment of God,you hold fast the tradition of men....Well do you nullify the commandment of God, that you may keep your own tradition....You make void the commandment of God by your tradition’” (Mk.7:5-13 DB).
Roman Catholic apologists understand that Matthew 15:1-9 and Mark 7:5-13 are often used proof texts against their position and thus offer two arguments against the standard Protestant interpretation of these passages. One argument is that these passages need to be interpreted in light of the other New Testament passages that praise apostolic tradition (e.g. 1 Cor. 11:2; 2 Thess. 2:15). The problem with this argument (as noted in the previous section) is that the New Testament defines positive tradition as direct, face-to-face, personal instructions by an inspired apostle. Thus, these positive passages have nothing to do with developments in theology after the death of the apostles that are not directly rooted in a historical, grammatical exegesis of Scripture.
Another Romanist argument is that Jesus only condemned bad traditions that are used to nullify the clear teaching of Scripture. Papal apologists support this assertion by an appeal to the immediate context in Matthew’s account where Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for using a man made commandment to avoid supporting their aged parents (cf. Mt. 15:5-6; Ex. 20:12). While it is true that our Lord’s example does show how a tradition can be used to make void the Word of God, this point does not mean that we can completely ignore verse 2 or the original confrontation that elicited Jesus’ response in verses 3 to 9. This whole section of Scripture begins with Christ condemning the most innocent-looking and apparently harmless human tradition ever invented by man– religious hand washings. How does washing one’s hands contradict, violate or explicitly set aside God’s word? The point our Lord is making is that when religious leaders have legislative authority to make up their own religious rules or regulations without authorization from Scripture (i.e., without biblical proof by direct commandment or logical inference), God’s Word will be hidden or rendered irrelevant by a growing mass of human traditions. Thus, an appeal to antiquity, or the post apostolic church fathers, or commonly accepted traditions, or even church councils without also supplying biblical proof rooted in an historical, grammatical interpretation of Scripture is not enough to establish a doctrine or religious practice in Christ’s church. It was not enough for Jesus and the apostles and it must never be enough for us, His followers.
Our Lord’s words and actions in Matthew 15 and Mark 7 cannot be exegetically circumvented by Romanist apologists. It is crystal clear from these sections of Scripture that Christ and the apostles would never countenance or participate in the ever-growing catalogue of Roman Catholic traditions that have nothing to do with the Bible (e.g., the sign of the cross, holy water, the mass, prayer and/or worship to saints and the virgin Mary, pilgrimages, the use of relics, holy sites, the adoration of the host, priestly vestments, the title “Father” for ministers,celibacy, the confessional, the hierarchy of bishops, the papacy, apostolic succession, the immaculate conception of Mary, etc.).
The apostle Paul also condemns man-made doctrine and commandments. “Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy, and vain deceit: according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ....If you have died with Christ to the elements of the world, why, as if still living in the world, do you lay down the rules: ‘Do not touch; nor taste; nor handle!’ – things that must all perish in their very use? In this you follow‘the precepts and doctrines of men,’ which, to be sure, have a show of wisdom in superstition and self-abasement and hard treatment of the body, but are not to be held in esteem, and lead to the full gratification of the flesh” (Col. 2:8, 20-23).
Note that the apostle’s condemnation of philosophy that is according to the tradition of men is universal. This teaching means that Christians must reject both the use of non-Christian systems of philosophy to formulate aspects of Christian doctrine (e.g., Thomas Aquinas’ dependence on Aristotle’s thinking) and the syncretism of biblical doctrine with heathen ideas, ethics and customs. Romanism is a very syncretistic religion (e.g., celibacy – neo-Platonism; Christmas – Saturnalia; Mariolatry –goddess worship; statue worship – rank heathenism; Easter – fertility cults, etc.).
Having noted how papal apologists completely redefine the word “tradition” (when used in a positive sense) to suit their own corrupt presuppositions, we will now turn our attention tothe Bible’s unequivocal condemnation of tradition as a source of authority. This examination will involve a refutation of Romanist attempts to refute the standard Reformed Protestant use of the anti-tradition texts.
In the whole Bible there was no greater opponent of human traditions in the religious sphere than Jesus Christ Himself. In the sermon of the mount our Lord spends a great deal of time refuting Pharisaical additions to the Law of Moses (Mt. 5:17-48). There were also direct confrontations with the Jewish religious leaders over their additions to written revelation. In these confrontations our Lord strongly condemned tradition as a rule for religious authority and exalted the Word of God. “The Pharisees and Scribes asked him, ‘Why do not thy disciples walk according to the tradition of the ancients...?’ But answering he said to them, ‘...in vain do theyworship me, teaching as doctrine the precepts of men. For letting go the commandment of God,you hold fast the tradition of men....Well do you nullify the commandment of God, that you may keep your own tradition....You make void the commandment of God by your tradition’” (Mk.7:5-13 DB).
Roman Catholic apologists understand that Matthew 15:1-9 and Mark 7:5-13 are often used proof texts against their position and thus offer two arguments against the standard Protestant interpretation of these passages. One argument is that these passages need to be interpreted in light of the other New Testament passages that praise apostolic tradition (e.g. 1 Cor. 11:2; 2 Thess. 2:15). The problem with this argument (as noted in the previous section) is that the New Testament defines positive tradition as direct, face-to-face, personal instructions by an inspired apostle. Thus, these positive passages have nothing to do with developments in theology after the death of the apostles that are not directly rooted in a historical, grammatical exegesis of Scripture.
Another Romanist argument is that Jesus only condemned bad traditions that are used to nullify the clear teaching of Scripture. Papal apologists support this assertion by an appeal to the immediate context in Matthew’s account where Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for using a man made commandment to avoid supporting their aged parents (cf. Mt. 15:5-6; Ex. 20:12). While it is true that our Lord’s example does show how a tradition can be used to make void the Word of God, this point does not mean that we can completely ignore verse 2 or the original confrontation that elicited Jesus’ response in verses 3 to 9. This whole section of Scripture begins with Christ condemning the most innocent-looking and apparently harmless human tradition ever invented by man– religious hand washings. How does washing one’s hands contradict, violate or explicitly set aside God’s word? The point our Lord is making is that when religious leaders have legislative authority to make up their own religious rules or regulations without authorization from Scripture (i.e., without biblical proof by direct commandment or logical inference), God’s Word will be hidden or rendered irrelevant by a growing mass of human traditions. Thus, an appeal to antiquity, or the post apostolic church fathers, or commonly accepted traditions, or even church councils without also supplying biblical proof rooted in an historical, grammatical interpretation of Scripture is not enough to establish a doctrine or religious practice in Christ’s church. It was not enough for Jesus and the apostles and it must never be enough for us, His followers.
Our Lord’s words and actions in Matthew 15 and Mark 7 cannot be exegetically circumvented by Romanist apologists. It is crystal clear from these sections of Scripture that Christ and the apostles would never countenance or participate in the ever-growing catalogue of Roman Catholic traditions that have nothing to do with the Bible (e.g., the sign of the cross, holy water, the mass, prayer and/or worship to saints and the virgin Mary, pilgrimages, the use of relics, holy sites, the adoration of the host, priestly vestments, the title “Father” for ministers,celibacy, the confessional, the hierarchy of bishops, the papacy, apostolic succession, the immaculate conception of Mary, etc.).
The apostle Paul also condemns man-made doctrine and commandments. “Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy, and vain deceit: according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ....If you have died with Christ to the elements of the world, why, as if still living in the world, do you lay down the rules: ‘Do not touch; nor taste; nor handle!’ – things that must all perish in their very use? In this you follow‘the precepts and doctrines of men,’ which, to be sure, have a show of wisdom in superstition and self-abasement and hard treatment of the body, but are not to be held in esteem, and lead to the full gratification of the flesh” (Col. 2:8, 20-23).
Note that the apostle’s condemnation of philosophy that is according to the tradition of men is universal. This teaching means that Christians must reject both the use of non-Christian systems of philosophy to formulate aspects of Christian doctrine (e.g., Thomas Aquinas’ dependence on Aristotle’s thinking) and the syncretism of biblical doctrine with heathen ideas, ethics and customs. Romanism is a very syncretistic religion (e.g., celibacy – neo-Platonism; Christmas – Saturnalia; Mariolatry –goddess worship; statue worship – rank heathenism; Easter – fertility cults, etc.).
Last edited: