Tradition and Truth
If you have been a pastor for any length of time, you know the traditions of a church can create some tension. The key to managing these traditions is making a wise assessment—do they elevate above the commands of God? Often, they do not, but in some cases, they do. A rural church will often have traditions handed down by generations of men, and the current generation does not even know why they do it.
Jesus asked many questions. One was asked of the Pharisees concerning their traditions: “Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition” (Matthew 15:3)? Tradition can exist in churches of all sizes, whether rural, city center, or suburban. The “we’ve always done it this way” crowd generally exists in smaller churches and is often deep in family ties. Tradition is not evil in and of itself. Defined, it means “something given or handed down over an extended period of time.” According to Mounce’s Expository Dictionary, “paradosis refers to keeping the traditions of men with the ultimate effect of disobeying the commands of God” (Matt. 15:2, 3, 6; Mark 7:3, 5, 8, 9, 13).
When referring to his traditions as he was being schooled in Judaism, Paul said in Galatians 1:13,14,
And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my countrymen, being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions. But when God, who had set me apart even from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, was pleased.
The Pharisees had a niche for adding to the law and elevating it above Scripture. Paul wrote in Colossians 2:8,
See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.
Not all tradition is bad. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 states,
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.
Likewise, 2 Thessalonians 3:6 says
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us.
It appears that whatever these traditions were, they were spiritually beneficial and did not exceed the authority of Scripture.
Related Posts:
You Might also like
-
Old Testament Sacraments, Pt. 2: The Tree of Life in the New Covenant
While partaking of the Tree of Knowledge caused irreparable division between man and man (Gen. 3:16) and man and God, the Lord’s Supper proclaims with certainty that a new Tree, Christ our Tree of Life, will unite us together and unite us with God at last. And we will no longer hunger or thirst, for we may take and eat of him forever.
In our previous post, we explored how the Tree of Life functioned as the sacrament of the Covenant of Works. It was a sign and seal of that covenant’s promises of the life and presence of God in Eden, God’s kingdom and temple.
We should note that, even though Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden, the Tree of Life was not destroyed–indeed, Adam and Eve are expelled in order to stop them from eating from the Tree of Life. This suggests that one day the tree may be accessed again, once the promised “seed of the woman” had arrived to crush the “seed of the serpent” (Gen. 3:15).
The tree reappears later in the Old Testament. In the tabernacle and temple, it is signified in the golden candlestick (shaped with branches like a tree), whose light illuminated the twelve loaves that represented the twelve tribes of Israel (Ex. 25:31-35; Lev 24: 1-9, et al).[1] The two cherubim above the mercy seat recall the two cherubim that guard the way to the Tree of Life (Num. 7:89).[2] By being deprived of the sacrament of the Covenant of Works but reminded of it in the Tabernacle and Temple, Israel was made to long for the fulfillment of the Covenant of Works by the “seed of the woman,” the restoration of the true temple of God, and eternal access to a new Tree of Life. It signified the day when a new priest-king would arise and restore access to God’s presence, a holy of holies accessible without the fear of death. Within this context, the work of Christ comes into focus.
Christ as the Tree of Life
Because the eternal life offered to Adam and Eve upon condition of obedience is of the same substance as the eternal life offered to us through Christ (union and communion with God for eternity), many theologians in the early church and Reformation recognized that the tree was a type of Christ in several senses. The Tree of Life was specifically understood as a symbol of wisdom (cf. Ps. 1; Prov. 3:18, 11:30, 13:12, 15:4), fulfilled in Christ who is himself the very wisdom of God (cf. Prov. 8; Col. 2:3).[3]
The Tree of Life has also been long understood as a sign of the cross: as Gregory of Nazianzus argues, “Christ is brought up to the tree and nailed to it—yet by the tree of life he restores us. Yes, he saves even a thief crucified with him; he wraps all the visible world in darkness.”[4] Calling Christ the true Tree of Life, Augustine states that “man was dismissed into the labors of this life so that he might at some point stretch forth his hand to the Tree of Life and live forever. The stretching forth of the hand clearly signifies the cross by which eternal life is recovered.”[5] Having fulfilled the Covenant of Works as the second Adam, Christ enables mankind once again to enjoy God’s presence and partake of the Tree of Life—His own body and blood—by which mankind can attain eternal life. Christ is thus the Way back into Eden, the true Wisdom of God, and the eternal Life offered to those who enter (Jn. 14:6). [6]
Eschatological Significance of the Tree of Life
Although there is much in the Gospels and Epistles which suggests that the benefits once offered through the Tree of Life in the Covenant of Works are enjoyed presently through Christ in the Covenant of Grace, we must note that explicit use of the image of the Tree of Life in the New Testament seems to be reserved for the Book of Revelation. It therefore seems to have a particular eschatological significance.
While Christ as the second Adam has given his people access to a renewed relationship with God in which we can partake of all his benefits, mankind still feels the curse of Adam and the burden of exile still weighs down the souls of men.
Read More
Related Posts: -
Machen Was Doomed, But The PCA Is Not
We can only speculate as to how he [Machen] might view the de facto revisions of the PCA’s confession and catechisms due to the allowances of “good faith subscription.” One thing is for sure—despite the challenges of the day, PCA confessionalists stand on much firmer ground and have far better prospects than did Machen in the first three and half decades of the 20th century.
J. Gresham Machen was doomed from the start in the Northern church. A virus was inserted into the PCUSA’S denominational source code going back to the mid-late 19th century at least. Add to the doctrinal defects the denomination’s stranglehold on the property of local congregations and you have an inevitable outcome…unless the bad guys leave and take the hit. And how often does this happen? The inertia and self-interest of large organizations usually win, especially when the organization is lavishly funded.
The Charles Augustus Briggs case was the little yellow bird in the mainline presbyterian coal mine. Though Briggs, a minister, professor, and opponent of the verbal inspiration of scripture, was defrocked in 1893, his very presence was a warning. But Briggs* was not just a doctrinal heretic—”Inerrancy is a ghost of modern evangelicalism to frighten children.”—he was also an opponent of that bulwark against error, confessionalism.Briggs sounded very up-to-date when he “claimed that the contemporary supporters of the Confession had actually distorted the spirit of its teaching. ‘Modern Presbyterianism,’ he charged, ‘had departed from the Westminster Standards’ and a ‘false orthodoxy had obtruded itself’ in its place. That false teaching—what he labeled ‘orthodoxism’—was coming from Princeton Seminary, principally in the defense of biblical authority championed by A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield.”
Briggs was ahead of the game when it comes to a sort of beautiful orthodoxy:
Orthodoxism assumes to know the truth and is unwilling to learn; it is haughty and arrogant, assuming the divine prerogatives of infallibility and inerrancy; it hates the truth that is unfamiliar to it, and prosecutes it to the uttermost. But (ed. note: beautiful?) orthodoxy loves the truth. It is ever anxious to learn, for it knows how greatly the truth of God transcends human knowledge…. It is meek, lowly, and reverent. It is full of charity and love. It does not recognize an infallible pope; it does not bow to an infallible theologian.
The above was quoted by Hart and Muether. Let us see more of what they wrote about this particular turning point in Presbyterian history. Ask yourself, O PCA presbyter, if anything sounds familiar:
Although critical of the alleged innovations from Princeton Seminary, Union Seminary’s Old School rival, Briggs did not advocate merely removing a supposed Princetonian gloss from the Westminster Confession. Presbyterians, he argued, must also acknowledge the inadequacies and errors of the Confession. Since progress was of the essence of genuine Presbyterianism, the Confession itself encouraged its adjustment “to the higher knowledge of our times and the still higher knowledge that the coming period of progress in theology will give us.” Failure to take this step would be to retreat to the errors of Rome and to abandon the very principles of the Reformation.
Briggs was tapping into a growing consensus in the church, which had begun to form no later than the reunion of 1869, that the harder Calvinistic edges of the Confession needed to be softened. In the words of Benjamin J. Lake, “Some of the time-honored rigidity in the Westminster Confession seemed obsolete to many Presbyterians.” Typically, Presbyterian rigidity was spelled p-r-e-d-e-s-t-i-n-a-t-i-o-n.
At the same time, former Old Schoolers feared the rise of “broad churchism” and anticonfessionalism. But if Briggs’s proposals outraged conservatives, the spirit and the terms of the 1869 reunion discouraged efforts to discipline him. (bolding mine)
That reunion was of the previously divided stick-in-the-mud Old Schoolers and go-go, revivalist New Schoolers. The question must be asked: Are the divides in the PCA of today just a repeat (or rhyming soundalike) of the Old School-New School contradictions?
Turning back to Machen, let us notice that “the harder Calvinistic edges of the Confession (which) needed to be softened” were in fact softened to encourage and pave the way for the PCUSA’s absorption of much of the Cumberland Presbyterian church, a sort of revivalist 4-point Calvinist mutant body. In 1903, revisions of a few sections, two added chapters, and a qualifying “declaratory statement” sucked the Calvinistic life out of the Westminster Confession—at least the Northern church’s version. Thus by 1920s, Machen and his allies were working with a confession already diluted and de-fanged. The writing was on the wall.The PCA and OPC are working with a restored WCF, thanks largely to Machen, who “was not as favorable (as Warfield), describing the 1903 revisions as ‘compromising amendments,’ ‘highly objectionable,’ a ‘calamity,’ and ‘a very serious lowering of the flag’ (Presbyterian Guardian, Nov. 28, 1936, pp. 69-70).”
Machen died soon after penning these words, of course. We can only speculate as to how he might view the de facto revisions of the PCA’s confession and catechisms due to the allowances of “good faith subscription.” One thing is for sure—despite the challenges of the day, PCA confessionalists stand on much firmer ground and have far better prospects than did Machen in the first three and half decades of the 20th century. Let us learn…and live.
Brad Isbell is a ruling elder at Covenant Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Oak Ridge, Tenn. This article is used with permission.
*Briggs became an Episcopalian
Related Posts: -
“Let There Be Light”
We can all rejoice that God is the God of light and that his Son Jesus is the Light of the World and the glorious fulfillment of Day One of Genesis. “In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it” (John 1:4-5).
Human beings have a natural love for light. It is no wonder, for light and all it represents was the very first thing that God introduced into his creation.
The first two verses of the Bible proclaim,In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.” (Gen. 1:1-2)
Creation was a structureless, lifeless, lightless, and watery chaos. And the Spirit of God hovered like a mother bird over the chaos. He loved the chaos, cared for the chaos, and was about to develop the chaos over a period of six days. Remember that we shouldn’t, strictly speaking, talk of “six days of creation,” for creation was achieved in a moment. Rather, Genesis 1 describes six days of God enlightening, ordering, filling, and enlivening his creation. This is day one:
And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening and there was morning—the first day (Gen. 1:3-5).
1. God spoke light into existence.
And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light (Gen. 1:3). Witness first the power of God: he speaks, things happen. In other words, what God wills happens. As Basil of Caesarea explained in his sermons on Genesis 1: “The divine will and the first impetus of divine intelligence are the Word of God.”
What happens, happens because God wills it to happen. There is no higher will than God’s, there is no will strong enough to compete with God, and there is no realm where God is not present and where his will does not rule. This is the doctrine of God’s sovereignty, and it is inherent in the word “God.” God by definition is the eternal being whose will reigns supreme and unchallenged. Thus, we call God “Lord” or “The Lord Almighty” or “King of kings and Lord of lords.”
In the Greek Pantheon, each god competes with the others. Even Zeus—king of Olympus—is outwitted and manipulated and frustrated by the mischievous wills of both gods and men. Elohim is not at all like this. He rules, full stop.
Note especially the power of God’s words. For Paul, this underpins the gospel mission. The gospel is God’s Word, so it is inherently powerful. Mighty Rome might find it pathetically weak, and the philosophers might find it grotesquely foolish—but even the “foolishness” of God is wiser and mightier than the power and wisdom of humanity (1 Cor. 1:18-25). And when God speaks directly to the human heart and spirit, his word is invincible (2 Cor. 4:6).
2. Light is a marvelous thing.
For starters, light is very quick, moving just shy of 300,000 kilometers per second. If you drove your car to the sun at 110km/h (the speed limit) it would take you 157 years to arrive. But if you could ride a beam of light to the sun, it would take you only eight minutes and twenty seconds. I am always delighted by the thought that when I look up at the stars, not only do I see a glorious picture of the number of Abraham’s descendants, I see also the distant past, the light of far distant stars and galaxies that may have taken thousands of years to reach me.
Our amazing scientists still do not wholly grasp the paradoxical nature of light. Physicists talk about “wave-particle duality,” or a “duality paradox”; for on the one hand light behaves like waves and has frequency and amplitude, but it also behaves like particles that can be amassed and focused into a laser beam that can cut through steel. The Jedi knight’s brilliant light sabre might be mythical, but the sheer awesome potential of light is not. These two distinct properties of light have not yet been harmonized. Albert Einstein said,It seems as though we must use sometimes the one theory and sometimes the other, while at times we may use either. We are faced with a new kind of difficulty. We have two contradictory pictures of reality; separately neither of them fully explains the phenomena of light, but together they do. (The Evolution of Physics, p. 278)
Read More
Related Posts: