What's the Difference? #3: The Bible, Tradition and Reformation

I. Introduction
A. We’ve been talking about the differences between the beliefs of the Roman Catholic (RC) and Eastern Orthodox (EO) churches and that of the churches of the Protestant Reformation. Today we’re talking about the Bible, tradition and reformation.
1. One of the major disagreements Protestant churches have with the RC/EO churches is over church tradition. We believe that Scripture is our final source of truth, and that God has not guaranteed to protect the tradition of the church from all error.
B. Reforms (or reformations) play a large role in the OT story.
1. Asa’s reform — 2Chron.15
2. Jehoshaphat’s reform — 2Chron.19
3. Hezekiah’s reform — 2Kings 18:1-7; 2Chron.29-31
4. Nehemiah’s reform — Nehemiah 13
5. And of course, Josiah’s reform — 2Kings 22-23
II. Explanation
A. The story of Josiah’s reformation
1. After Good King Hezekiah’s great reform, things took a sudden turn for the worse.
2. The worst king Judah ever had took the throne: Manasseh, who reigned for 55 years. And then his son Amon, who followed in his footsteps.
3. The catalogue of sins of Manasseh is unsurpassed: e.g. v.2 “he did what was evil in the sight of the Lord, according to the despicable practices of the nations whom the Lord drove out before the people of Israel.”
4. There are many specifics listed:
a. He rebuilt the high places that Hezekiah his father had destroyed.
b. He erected altars for Baal and made an Asherah, as Ahab king of Israel had done.
c. He worshiped all the host of heaven and served them.
d. He built altars in the house of the Lord and in the two courts of the temple for all the host of heaven
e. He burned his son as an offering.
f. He used fortune-telling and omens and dealt with mediums and with wizards.
g. He had a carved image of Asherah made and set it in the temple.
h. He also shed very much innocent blood, till he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another.
5. And then along comes Josiah.
a. Josiah was Judah’s last good king, and probably the best.
b. He instituted a great reform in Judah after the corruptions of Josiah’s grandfather Manasseh.
c. Josiah’s reforms began at age 16, but received a jolt of new energy when the book of the law was discovered by Shaphan.
6. The worship of God had been so neglected in Judah that the official copies of the Scriptures, kept in the temple, hadn’t been seen or looked for for many years. It seems that they were virtually forgotten.
7. And then Josiah begins his reform and orders the priests to begin cleaning out the temple so it can be used again. And as they are doing so, the priests suddenly rediscovered the lost scriptures, a discovery which, like an earthquake, begins to shake up everything in Judah, and even in Israel.

B. The Talmud
1. During the days of Israel in the OT, God’s people had a growing collection of scriptures.
2. They also had their tradition, which they thought was on a par with the Scripture.
3. This was a situation very similar to that in the RC and EO today.
4. You see, the OT Jews had a body of traditions which grew over the years alongside the Scriptures, called the Talmud. It contained the ideas and interpretations of the great rabbis and schools of thought. It was an official written record of the oral tradition of God’s people in the OT, and was considered authoritative by the Jews. They didn’t believe in Sola Scriptura. They believed in Scripture and tradition — the Talmudic tradition.
5. And yet when Jesus showed up, what happened? Mark 7:1–13 gives us a taste:
a. Now when the Pharisees gathered to him, with some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem, 2 they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. 3 (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands properly, holding to the tradition of the elders, 4 and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.) 5 And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?” 6 And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, “ ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; 7 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ 8 You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.” 9 And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ 11 But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, “Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban” ’ (that is, given to God)— 12 then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, 13 thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.”
b. He shot the Talmudic traditions down and said they should have been paying attention to His word instead.
(1) 7 teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.
(2) 8 You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.
(3) 9 You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition
(4) 13 thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down.
(5) Jesus never confronted anyone for following the Bible instead of a tradition. He only confronted them for following a tradition instead of the Bible.
C. Now I’m not saying it’s impossible that Jesus could have changed things. Just because the tradition of the OT church was ridden with errors doesn’t mean that Jesus couldn’t change things and make the tradition of the NT church pure. Obviously God is able to keep a tradition undefiled with human ideas, if He so wills. (He could also keep the interpretation of the Bible by His people pure, if He so willed.) The question is, Has He? And if He has, how do we know that?
1. There is nothing in the OT pattern which would lead us to think he would. There are no prophecies I know of pointing ahead to this.
2. Where does the NT say that He did this? If there was a change like this, if there was a shift of this magnitude, surely it would have been clearly spelled out in the NT, like the changes re: the food laws and the sacrificial laws and the laws of the priesthood and the inclusion of the Gentiles and the changes regarding circumcision. These are all clearly delineated in the NT.
3. But where in the NT is this shift explained?
a. Jesus says the gates of hell will not prevail against His church (Matt.16:18), but that doesn’t mean its traditions will be infallible.
b. Paul speaks of the church’s responsibility to uphold the truth of Christ by saying that the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth (1Tim.3:15), but again that doesn’t prove its traditions are infallible.
c. Now I understand that there are a few verses in the NT in which the apostles speak about tradition in a positive way.
(1) There was a time when the message of Jesus and the apostles was being passed around orally, before the NT scriptures were written. That oral tradition was all there was of the NT message, so of course it was spoken about in a positive manner. But once it was put in written form in the NT scriptures, there was no more need for the tradition to be relied upon in the same way.
(2) We’re going to cover these soon in our SS class. I have included the hand-out on that subject below for anyone who would like to read it now.
4. But if the church of the NT was supposed to have a completely different relationship with tradition than the OT church, this would be a gigantic change! If suddenly things were changing so radically that — after all Jesus had said about tradition — God’s people were supposed to rely on tradition over and above Scripture – that would be earthshaking, ground-breaking news!
5. There was a big deal made about all the other changes. But about this, there’s silence.
6. Take the example of the apostles. Jesus chose them to represent Him and to carry on His message after He was gone. The apostleship was a new institution — one that didn’t exist before Christ, and which was given to proclaim and preserve the truth in the days after Christ. How would God’s people know to trust what the apostles said and respect their authority?
a. Well, to address this need Jesus went out of His way to make it clear that we’re supposed to regard the apostles’ teaching as authoritative.
(1) He makes it clear that He chose them.
(2) And that they’re being trained to proclaim His message throughout the world after He’s gone.
(3) He clearly tells them that the Holy Spirit is going to be given them to bring to remembrance the things He has taught them, and that the Spirit would continue to teach them as He had. (John 14:26)
(4) He tells us that His church would be built upon the foundation of the apostles (Matt.16:18-19; Eph.2:20)
(5) He gives them special authority in the church in the form of the keys of the kingdom, whereby whatever they bound or loosed on earth would be bound or loosed in heaven (Matt.18:17-18).
(6) Twice He spoke of the apostles as judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt.19:28; Luke 22:30).
(7) He told them in John 20:23 that if they forgive the sins of any, they would be forgiven; and if they withhold forgiveness from any, it would be withheld.
(8) In Jn.20:21 Jesus said to the Twelve, “As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.”
(9) He commissioned them to go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that He had commanded. (Matthew 28:18–20)
(10) He said they would be His special witnesses (Luke 24:47-48; Acts 1:6).
(11) He told them not to worry about what to say because His Spirit would give them the words (Matt.10:19-20; Luke 12:12).
(12) Listen to 2 remarkable things Jesus says to the apostles the last night before the crucifixion:
(a) John 15:26–27 “When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me. And you also will bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning.”
(b) John 16:12–13 “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.”
b. And we could go on and on. The point is, Jesus made it very clear that the apostles were empowered to represent Him and speak for Him.
7. But where are all the verses which say the same kings of things about the church? Where are all the verses which say that the same kind of authority and infallibility given to the apostles would be given to the church leaders who came after them? Where is the guarantee that the church would continuously speak the truth soundly in a similar way to the apostles? If Jesus, although criticizing the practice of putting tradition on a par with Scripture, now wants to commend this same combination as trustworthy in the NT church, where is the proof?
III. Application
A. We need a Bible which is free to reform. The Bible can’t reform RC or EO church tradition, because the Bible isn’t allowed to say anything contrary to what the church tradition already says.
1. They’re not allowed to ask, “Is what we believe really consistent with what the Bible says?”
2. You see, when you make tradition the authority, then whatever the church believes becomes your Bible. And instead of the scriptures having the role of correcting what you believe, what you believe corrects the Bible.
B. The point of the reformation was not to start a new church that does everything right, but to start letting the Bible be the reforming agent of the church. And you can’t do that if tradition reigns, if tradition is seen as divine and infallible.
C. It is true that you don’t find safety in the Bible either. We don’t claim that Sola Scriptura is safe. We believe than none of the options are safe. We believe that safety isn’t found in a system. There are at least two reasons that the Bible alone is not safe:
1. First of all, Bible reformation can be quite destructive. Destructive of idols. Destructive of pride. Destructive of ease. Destructive of false assumptions. Jesus wasn’t safe, was He? He turned many things on their heads.
2. And secondly, it is possible to justify all kinds of stupidities on the basis of Scripture. So, in the name of the Bible a wide assortment of ridiculous and even evil ideas and notions have been defended.
a. But this is not because it’s bad for people to read, study and listen to the Bible.
b. Think about this: When Jesus came, there were many different parties or groups among the Jews, each having different ideas theoretically drawn from the same Bible.
(1) Some were justifying groundless divorce on the basis of Deuteronomy.
(2) Others were promoting violent revolution against Rome on the basis of the Old Testament.
c. But Jesus didn’t rebuke them for studying the Scripture. He rebuked them for not listening to it.
(1) John 5:39–40 Jesus says to those who were accusing Him of breaking the Sabbath, and even calling God his Father, speaking of himself as if He was equal with God: “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.”
(2) Matthew 22:29 Jesus said to the ones who were challenging His view of resurrection, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.”
(3) Matthew 21:42 Jesus said to the scribes and Pharisees who were questioning His authority: “Have you never read in the Scriptures?”
(4) And remember what He says to Nicodemus when he’s surprised by the notion of being born again: “You’re a teacher of Israel and you don’t know these things?” (John 3:10)
d. In all these cases Jesus rebuked them for not GETTING what God had said in His word. He wasn’t opposed to their reading the Bible and trying to figure out what it said. He was outraged at their dull and hard hearts which caused them to misinterpret the Bible.
e. Sola Scriptura didn’t work for them, but it wasn’t because there was something wrong with the principle of Sola Scriptura, it was because of the hardness of their hearts, so that they didn’t come to the scriptures with a humble, open, trusting attitude, and therefore kept missed its meaning.
D. Don’t get me wrong! I am not knocking tradition. Tradition should be our adviser and our friend. We should pay close attention to what believers who have gone before us thought and how they interpreted Scripture.
1. Sola Scriptura doesn’t mean Solo Scriptura. Independent, self-sufficient Bible investigation is reckless, dangerous and arrogant.
2. What I’m knocking is the notion that tradition is infallible, that tradition authoritatively tells us the truth and interprets the Bible for us. What I’m knocking is the notion that Scripture can never be allowed to reform tradition.

_______________________________________________________________________

Sola Scriptura and Oral Tradition by Pastor Jack Lash July 2014

One of the arguments used against Sola Scriptura (the authority of Scripture alone) by those who advocate the authority of church tradition is that the NT repeatedly urges God’s people to believe and obey the tradition of the apostles.

They are correct that there ARE several times the NT epistles refer to tradition in a positive sense:
● 2Thessalonians 2:15 “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.”
● 2Thessalonians 3:6 “We command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.”
● 1Corinthians 11:2 “Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.”

The Greek word for tradition is a combination of the word for ‘give’ and the word for ‘over.’ The places where the noun is used just refer, then, to that which is passed along from one person to another. The verb means to hand something over to someone else, to pass something on to another person. The verbal form is used in a positive sense in the NT as well:
● 1Corinthians 11:23 “For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread...”
● 1Corinthians 15:3 “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures...”

Although the Greek words are different, the same idea is contained in other verses:
● 1Timothy 6:20 “O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you.”
● 2Timothy 1:14 “By the Holy Spirit who dwells within us, guard the good deposit entrusted to you.”
● Titus 1:9 “He [an overseer] must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.”

Down through history, God has at times spoken infallibly to mankind through human prophets, vessels through which He has revealed Himself and His will. While those prophets were alive and delivering God’s prophetic messages, their messages were to be received by God’s people as authoritative. Many people, of course, did not hear the message directly from the prophet himself/herself. The message was passed along from one person to another, and each one who heard it was still responsible to listen to it and obey it. For a time, this oral tradition was the only form in which the messages of the prophet existed. And during this time the people of God were responsible to maintain, hold onto, and stand firm on the prophetic tradition they had received and to disapprove of those who were not willing to walk in accord with these traditions.

At some point, it was the will of God for these messages to be written down. (We all know that written transmission is generally more reliable in terms of preservation than oral transmission.) These written words were recognized as carrying the same weight and authority as the audible words of the prophet. There may have been some prophecies or pieces of prophecies which in God’s providence never got recorded in written form. We assume that any lost prophecies were deemed by God to be unnecessary for future generations of God’s people to have. We know of no mechanism or institution set up by God to preserve or orally pass along any non-written revelations received through the prophets.

There is no reason for us to conclude that the revelations of the apostles should be treated any differently. At first, the oral “tradition” which Jesus began and was proclaimed by the apostles was the only form in which this revelation existed. So, it does not surprise us to find commands in some of Paul’s early epistles to maintain the traditions they had received from the apostle.

But over the years, God in His wisdom ordained for these things to be recorded in written form, through the epistles, through the gospels, etc. So, gradually over the years of the apostles, the need for passing along their teaching through oral tradition faded as the copies of their writings began to permeate the churches. And once the apostles died, their teachings preserved in their writings, the emphasis shifts from the oral tradition to the writings, the Scriptures.

The principle of Sola Scriptura was not operative during those days of the apostles, of course, since the apostles themselves were a source of authoritative revelation (as well as the NT prophets). But in the period since the foundation-laying period of the apostles and prophets (Ephesians 2:20) there has been no other authoritative source of revelation, thus we have Sola Scriptura.