Defending Tradition against Protestant Reformation Theology
The Protestant Reformation emphasized sola scriptura, or "Scripture alone," as the ultimate authority for faith and practice, often contrasting it with human traditions [1]. This perspective views many traditions as potentially undermining God's law rather than upholding it [3].
Jesus himself frequently challenged the traditions of the religious leaders of his day. For instance, in Matthew 5:21-47, Jesus contrasts his own teaching with six misinterpretations of the law, which were rooted in traditional interpretations by teachers of religious law and Pharisees [2]. While these traditions prohibited murder, they did not prohibit hatred, a deficiency Jesus addressed by demanding reconciliation [2]. Similarly, in Mark 7:11-12, Jesus critiques a tradition that allowed individuals to sidestep the command to honor parents by dedicating resources to God, thereby disregarding their parents' needs [6]. This highlights a recurring theme where Jesus reveals God's will in contrast to human traditions [2]. The Jamieson, Fausset & Brown commentary notes that Jesus' teaching in Matthew 5:17-48 establishes the principles of the ancient economy in contrast to the reigning traditional teaching of his time [1].
From a Reformed perspective, figures like John Calvin acknowledged that the term "tradition" could refer to rules laid down by apostles, but he also recognized its use in contexts where human traditions were treated as problematic, such as in Matthew 15:6 [5]. Calvin's commentary on Philippians suggests that some individuals might have believed that Christian doctrine "stood or fell" with a particular person, indicating a reliance on human authority rather than the core message [4]. The integrity of biblical texts was also a concern, as evidenced by warnings against altering the contents of books like Revelation, a practice scribes sometimes engaged in to suit their own views [7]. This underscores the Protestant emphasis on the unadulterated biblical text as the foundation of faith, distinct from human-made traditions or interpretations that might deviate from it [7].
Sources
- Matthew (Presbyterian) “Jamieson, Fausset & Brown on Matthew 5:17: IDENTITY OF THESE PRINCIPLES WITH THOSE OF THE ANCIENT ECONOMY; IN CONTRAST WITH THE REIGNING TRADITIONAL TEACHING. (Mat. 5:17-48) Think not that I am come--that I came. to destroy the law, or the prophets--that is, "the authority and principles of the Old Testament." (On the phrase, see Mat 7:12; Mat 22:40; Luk 16:16; Act 13:15). This general way of taking the phrase is much better than understanding "the law" and "the prophets" separately, and inquiring, as many good critics do, in what sense our Lord could be supposed to meditate the subversion ”
- Matthew (Protestant academic) “Tyndale House on Matthew 5:21: 5:21-47 You have heard. . . . But I say: Jesus contrasts his own teaching to six misinterpretations of the law. Each antithesis provides an example of the surpassing righteousness of Jesus. Jesus reveals the will of God as it contrasts with traditions. 5:21 our ancestors were told: The expression refers to the traditional interpretation of the teachers of religious law and Pharisees. Though their traditions prohibited murder, they did not prohibit hatred. The surpassing righteousness of Jesus demands reconciliation (5:23-24); merely refraining from committing mur”
- Matthew (Presbyterian) “Jamieson, Fausset & Brown on Matthew 15:3: But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?--The charge is retorted with startling power: "The tradition they transgress is but man's, and is itself the occasion of heavy transgression, undermining the authority of God's law."”
- CCEL (Reformed) “Calvin, Commentary on Philippians, Colossians, 1-2 Thessalonians, section 6.6: they made it their aim to destroy him, they exerted themselves to promote the gospel, on account of which they were hostile to him; but they imagined, no doubt, that the cause of Christ would stand or fall 72 72 “ Mais voyla: il leur sembloit que la doctrine consistoit ou tomboit bas ;” — “But mark! it seemed to them that doctrine stood or fell.” in the person of one individual. If, however, there were envious persons, 73 73 “ Que si c’estoit d’autres que Juifs, ascauoir quelques enuieux de Sainct Paul ;” — “But if ”
- CCEL (Reformed) “Calvin, Commentary on Philippians, Colossians, 1-2 Thessalonians, section 79.2: order, and I admit that it is taken in this sense when human traditions are treated of, ( Matthew 15:6 .) Paul, however, will be found in the next chapter making use of the term tradition , as meaning the rule that he had laid down, and the very signification of the term is general. The context, however, as I have said, requires that it be taken here to mean the whole of that doctrine in which they had been instructed. For the matter treated of is the most important of all — that their faith may remain secure in th”
- Mark (Protestant academic) “Tyndale House on Mark 7:11: 7:11-12 But you say: The contrast with God’s law is emphatic—their tradition repudiated God’s command for people to honor their parents by providing for their needs. • ‘For I have vowed to give to God what I would have given to you’: The tradition said that people could sidestep their obligation to support their parents by dedicating some of their resources to God, thus disregarding and dishonoring their needy parents.”
- Revelation (Protestant academic) “Tyndale House on Revelation 22:18: 22:18-19 I solemnly declare: John issues an oath to protect the integrity of the book of Revelation. He declares a curse upon anyone who alters the contents of the book or its message (cp. Deut 4:2; 12:32). The curse contrasts with the statement of blessing on all who read aloud, listen to, and obey the prophecy (Rev 1:3). At the time Revelation was written, scribes would sometimes alter books to suit their own views. Early Christians quickly developed means of authenticating both messages and messengers (see John 21:24; 1 Cor 16:21; Gal 6:11; Col 4:18; 2 The”