The word "tradition" often evokes negative reactions. This is quite understandable, for an anti-traditional wind has been blowing through our society for some time. Moreover, as most of our people are Dutch immigrants, we have our struggles with our own tradition. It has always been stressed in our circles that we should preserve our Reformed heritage in our new country. That is indeed vital. Yet in preserving our own Reformed principles, it becomes clear that we stand somehow alone in this new world. When, at times, our children ask us: Why are we different? we cannot always give a satisfactory answer. Sometimes the impression is left that it is "only" our Dutch tradition that makes us different. That might be a reason why some of our younger people may think that there is but little biblical basis for a number of our distinctives. They feel uneasy with some of our traditions and the perennial question is asked: Should we not abandon these traditions? After all one of the basic tenets of the Reformation is: Sola Scriptura. Does this principle not imply that the ultimate basis of doctrine, faith and life is Scripture alone, and not human tradition? In the light of these questions, we would do well to reflect a little further on the relationship between Scripture and tradition. Is there, in the light of Sola Scriptura of the Reformation, indeed no place for tradition at all? We shall see.

The Roman Catholic View⤒🔗

It is important for us to look at the Roman Catholic view on Scripture and tradition first, since this has a rather decisive impact on the different views that were developed later. How did the Roman Catholic view originate? During the beginnings of the early church, the books of the Old Testament and the apostolic writings of the New Testament were accepted as the Word of God. Although this designa­tion was not used at first, these writings became the canon of the Scripture. However, the early church discovered, at the same time, that these writings were subject to a variety of interpretations: even heretics based their views on them! Hence the question arose: What is the right explanation of Scripture? The answer, in those days, was that it is determined by the church. The Holy Spirit is at work both in the Scripture and in the church. She alone rightly understands the Scripture. Hence she has the authority to decide how the Scripture should be interpreted. The church makes this known in her catholic teaching, or apostolic tradition. This tradition is defined as "that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all". Thus the concept of tradition initially meant: The authoritative explanation of Scripture by the church, in order to preserve the truth against the claims of all heretics.

This view on tradition changed during the late medieval period. At that time the doctrine and practice of the church contained too many elements which were not directly derivable from the Bible (e.g. five of the seven sacraments, the mass, etc.). In order to justify those elements, the church sought refuge in the idea of a separate oral tradition, which supposedly had existed from the days of the apostles. It is against this background that the Council of Trent (1546) declared that besides the books of the Bible, it accepts and venerates, "with the same sense of loyalty and reverence", the truth in so far as it is contained "in the unwritten traditions that the apostles received from Christ Himself or that were handed on, as it were, from hand to hand, from the apostles under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and so have come down to us". Two sources of revelation are thus put beside each other; for there is not only the inspired Word but also the inspired tradition! It is obvious that in this concept, tradition is not simply the authoritative explanation of the Scripture by the church anymore; it has become a supplement to the Scripture, another source of revelation! The results of this development have been far reaching: The Roman Catholic Church has come to live more by her own traditions than by the Word of God.

The Radical View←⤒🔗

It has become clear, under the previous heading, that tradition may become a power which distorts and even replaces the Word of God. In this light, it is interesting to notice that the word "tradition" originally could mean two things: It may signify the transmission of a message, but also the betrayal of a message! In the days of the Reformation, many people believed that this was what the Roman Catholic tradition had done to the Scripture: It had betrayed and distorted the truth of the Word of God. These accusations were voiced the loudest in the so-called "Radical Wing" of the Reformation. To this group belonged, among others, the Anabaptists. Generally speaking, it was their intention to return to the Bible and the simplicity of the New Testament church. Along with this, there was a strong tendency among them to reject the tradition altogether. Some even called the history of the church, after the days of the apostles, the "fall of the church"! The underlying thought was that, as Adam had fallen from a perfect state in Paradise, so the church had fallen from its initial, apostolic purity in the course of its history. Consequently, a strong biblicism prevailed in Anabaptist circles. This implies that they rejected everything that was not explicitly mentioned in the words of Scripture. Hence they disliked creeds and theological terms which had been coined in the early centuries. It is significant that Menno Simons, one of the leaders of the Dutch Anabaptists, in his writings, deliberately avoided any phraseology even slightly resembling a creed; so great was his fear that a creed might take precedence over the Bible! Thus these men read and interpreted the Scripture in a kind of splendid isolation, at least historically speaking. They believed that since the days of the apostles the Scripture had not been rightly understood, as it had been constantly distorted by human tradition. Thus they felt compelled to entirely reject tradition.

The Reformed View←⤒🔗

Martin Luther approached the Scripture from the per­spective of the church teaching in his day, and gradually discovered contradictions existing in certain fundamental areas. Where he saw contradictions, he sided with the Scripture and rejected deviations as being mere human traditions. Yet, he did not become a Biblicist. Indeed, he criticized distorted church traditions, but he did not reject tradition as such. He accepted, for example, the three creeds of the early church, the teachings of many church fathers and a number of traditional theological terms and concepts. However, his fundamental difference with the Roman Cath­olic Church was that he reversed the order between Scripture and tradition. Since the second century, the Roman Catholic order had been that the tradition (the Church) determines what the Scripture says. The view of the Reformers is that Scripture determines which tradition is acceptable and which should be rejected. In this light, it is clear that the Reformation never intended to be anti-traditional and even less anti-historical than the radical groups were. Luther and Calvin were deeply convinced that they were not the first, since the days of the apostles, who understood the Scripture aright. For that reason they highly valued the contribution of the history of the Christian Church. However, where the tradition departed from the Word of God, they did not hesitate to reject it as outright heresy.

This principle is still valid for us today. We cannot simply disregard tradition as having no value. We are historical beings, that means that we are affected and moulded by the past, whether we like it or not! Moreover, in reading the Scripture and seeking to live accordingly, we stand not alone and in isolation from the past. God has blessed His Word in the days gone by; for people have been guided and directed by His Word! Some of them have received great insight into the things of God. We may think of the days of the Reformation, the Puritan era, the time of the Secession of 1834 in the Netherlands, etc. All these periods in history have moulded our tradition and we would only short-change ourselves if we put them aside as having little or no value. The Scripture emphasizes that together with all the saints – that includes the saints of a bygone day! – we might be enabled to comprehend the love of Christ, which passes all knowledge (cf. Eph. 3:18, 19). That is the deepest reason why we need to listen to the voices of the past, and to cherish the heritage they have left.

Does that mean that everything from the past is good and acceptable? Of course not! We should not hesitate to examine our tradition in the light of the Word of God. And if some of our traditions prove to be contrary to the Word of God, we should not hesitate to abandon them. That is one of the great lessons which the Reformation has taught us.