What is the role of tradition in religion? Is it positive or negative? In Jesus’ day, I think we have to say it was negative. I remind the reader that while Jesus, a Jew, walked the earth, he was living under the Law of Moses. Christianity, the religion he brought to the world, only began after his resurrection. In fact, without the resurrection there could be no Christianity. “If Christ is not risen, your faith is futile.” (1 Cor. 15:17 NKJV)
Jesus
had to deal with tradition while living under the Law of Moses with the Jewish
leaders of the land. He and his disciples were constantly harassed by those who
felt he and his followers were breaking the law of God. Those accusations were
based on what – scripture or tradition? Obviously, on Jewish tradition, but one
has to remember the Jewish authorities believed their tradition had God as its
source, just as do the Catholics of our day.
Let us hear Jesus on the topic: “Then the scribes and
Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying, ‘Why do your disciples
transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when
they eat bread.’ He answered and said to them, ‘Why do you also transgress the
commandment of God because of your tradition? For God commanded, saying, 'honor
your father and your mother'; and, 'he who curses father or mother, let him be
put to death.' But you say, 'Whoever says to his father or mother,
"Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God” then he
need not honor his father or mother.' Thus you have made the commandment of God
of no effect by your tradition.” (Mat 15:1-6 NKJV, see also Mark 7:1-13)
The Pharisees were always watching Jesus for any
transgression of their traditions, traditions which to them were equivalent in
authority to the writings of Moses and the prophets. There would be no healing
on the Sabbath, no plucking of grain to satisfy hunger on the Sabbath. The law
of man-made tradition was made in their eyes into the law of God, and they would
hear of nothing else. Scripture alone was not enough. It had to be interpreted
by those in positions of power within the religious community which resulted in
additions, subtractions, and perversions. Do you see any parallels in this to
Roman Catholicism? You should.
So that is where we were with tradition in the days when
Jesus walked the earth. Jewish tradition continued to evolve with time. Judaism
today is a religion far distant from the Law of Moses.
The
apostle Paul spoke of tradition in some of his writings. In Gal. 1:14, he talks
of his time before his conversion to Christianity when he was “exceedingly
zealous for the traditions of my fathers.” (NKJV) This would have been during
the time when he held the coats of those who stoned Stephen to death, “And when
the blood of your martyr
Stephen was shed, I also was standing by consenting to his
death, and guarding the clothes of those who were killing him.” (Act 22:20
NKJV) This is where a blind zeal for religious tradition can lead a man.
Paul further says, “Many of the saints I shut up in
prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were
put to death, I cast my vote against them.” (Acts 26:10 NKJV) This, of course,
was before his conversion to Christianity, but while he was enslaved to
religious tradition.
After Paul’s conversion, in later life, he warned against
tradition, “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty
deceit, according to human tradition.” (Col 2:8 ESV) So, we have been warned.
But did not Paul speak positively about traditions? He did
so in 1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Thess. 2:15, and 2 Thess. 3:6. To the Corinthians, he said
he praised them that they kept “the traditions as I delivered them to you.”
(NKJV) To the Thessalonians, he said, “Hold the traditions which you were
taught, whether by word or our epistle.” (2 Thess. 2:15 NKJV)
What are we to make of these statements? Just this, if
Paul delivered the traditions to them, to the Corinthians, then that is what we
would call teaching or doctrine as he spoke by the Holy Spirit being an
inspired apostle. What else would you call it? A number of versions do not even
use the word traditions here. The King James Version uses the word
“ordinances,” the New Living Translation uses the word “teachings” as does the
Good News Bible, while the LITV (the Literal Translation) uses the word
“doctrines.” It was not tradition in the sense in which men use the word today, but rather Christian doctrine that Paul delivered to them.
The same thing can be said for the 2 Thess. 2:15 passage
where the NIV uses the word “teachings,” the NLT “the teaching,” the Good News
Bible “truths,” YLT (Young’s Literal Translation) “deliverances.” The same can
be said regarding the 2 Thess. 3:6 passage in that the same Greek word is used
in all three passages, the word for traditions being in Greek the word
“paradosis.” So the point to be made is that what Paul was speaking of was not
traditions in the sense in which we normally use that word, but was speaking of
his own spirit-inspired teachings he had delivered to those to whom he spoke or
was writing to.
The
apostle Peter also spoke of tradition. He speaks of ‘aimless conduct received
by tradition from your fathers” (1 Peter 1:18 NKJV) as he spoke to the Jews of
the
Dispersion. One can surely see Peter was not speaking
positively of the tradition they had accepted.
One
can ask the question, one ought to, why should we blindly accept religious
tradition -- why? Is it because it cannot be wrong? Why can’t it be wrong? If
it could be wrong in the first century it can also be wrong in the twenty-first
century.
Catholic Tradition
We turn now to tradition in Roman Catholicism. The reader likely already knows that with
Catholics tradition is on par with scripture in terms of having authority over
one’s spiritual life. Traditional Catholicism has rejected the Bible alone as
being a sufficient guide to eternal life. Furthermore, they have historically
rejected the idea that a person unaided by the church can understand the Bible
on their own. The church will tell you what it means. You can have a Ph.D. in
biblical languages, you can be brilliant intellectually, but unaided by the
church, you are helpless in discerning the true meaning of scripture. If you
want to know what scripture means, you must listen to the church. They will tell
you. What is a correct interpretation of
a passage? Whatever the church tells you.
You
cannot combat tradition in Catholicism. Why not? Because the church has
declared itself infallible in its teachings and people blindly accept that. It
is an easy way out of being personally responsible. The Catholic Church has
made itself untouchable. You can no more combat it than you could Judaism in
the first century. Masses of people died in Judaism despite Christianity, and
masses will die in Catholicism despite Christianity.
Eve
did not get a pass from God for being deceived, nor did the man of God, who, after
prophesying against Jeroboam’s altar in 1 Kings 13, was then deceived by an old
prophet and paid for it with his life. Should we hope for a pass if we allow
ourselves to be deceived by man’s tradition, whether in Judaism or Catholicism?
There is an aspect of Catholic tradition that most people who are not Catholic are unaware of. In Catholicism, tradition does not mean what
you naturally think it means.
With most of us, tradition refers to what has gone on in
the past and then been handed down. We assume then that in religion it would be
what has been handed down through the ages from the first century. That would
not be necessarily so; it seems to depend.
Get on the internet and search for a timeline on Catholic
dogmas. When you do so you will find lists giving the dates of when this and
that dogma became official. There will be many of them crossing the span of the
past two thousand years. If these various dogmas came from scripture or the
first century, they would have been incorporated from the beginning of
Christianity. They came from tradition, Catholic tradition. I bring this to
your attention to make the point that Catholic tradition does not go back all
the way to the beginning of Christianity. It jumps in wherever the powers that
be want it.
Catholics
disagree among themselves on the meaning of tradition. The traditional view
separates tradition from scripture. In
Catholicism, only by combining the two can you have the sacred deposit of faith,
as some call it, or put another way, “the word of God.” Scripture by itself is
only partial, only part of the word of God. The word of God in Catholicism
requires both scripture and tradition for completion.
A second school of thought in Catholicism sees tradition
as being whatever the church says it is. I know, I know, no Catholic would
agree with this statement, but hear me out. With this second school of thought
in Catholicism, all of Catholic tradition is already found in written scripture, but the church has to bring it out (by its interpretation). Thus, they can find
in scripture things the average reader cannot even imagine –
transubstantiation, the papacy, Mary’s Immaculate Conception, her Assumption,
purgatory, etc., things you need the church to help you find. Some describe
Catholic tradition as being “living.” I would certainly agree with that, living
and growing, and that is just the problem with it. Any doctrine in Catholicism
has to be either from scripture or tradition, so pick your doctrine and tell us where
its origin was.
Roman Catholicism is a religion separate unto itself. It
is not Christianity. I have no problem saying it evolved out of Christianity, but it long ago ceased to be Christian. So, why are we surprised? Did not the
same evolution from truth into error occur in Judaism? Even the New Testament
teaches there will be and must be a falling away before the second coming of
Christ (2 Thess. 2:3). The scripture teaches there will be a falling away, so
let us not talk and act like it cannot happen.
Let me play the role of a Catholic for a moment. As a
Catholic, I declare the Catholic Church to be the one and only church of the New
Testament. I claim to believe scripture, so what do I do with 2 Thess. 2:3, “Let
no one deceive you by any means; for that day (the last day – DS) will not come
unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of
perdition”? (NKJV) It says my church will fall away, for after all, my church
is the only true church, according to Catholicism.
I cannot say this passage refers to the Reformation. Why
not? There is no one in Protestantism sitting “as God in the temple of God,
showing himself that he is God.” (2 Thess. 2:4). In fact, since Protestantism
is so diverse and divided, it is hard to see how that could ever be. And, yet,
believing what I do, remember I am putting myself in the shoes of a devout
Catholic, how can there ever be a falling away in my church since the church is
said to be infallible, full of the spirit of God? I cannot solve this dilemma
for the Catholics. I am sure the Catholics will have an answer if pressed, and
when they do, it will be said to be infallible, for you see that is the way it is
in Catholicism.
[To download this article or print it out click here.]
