Traditional Truth And Traditional Error

by J.L Ferguson, Barrhead | Category: General | Nov 1976

Tradition may be in accordance with divinely revealed truth or may be contrary to the latter, so as to make it of none effect. All Christians are affected by tradition. Our responsibility is individually to examine whether the traditions we hold are in keeping with God's Word or whether they are plainly a departure from it.

The Greek word paradosis, translated tradition, means something handed down or handed on. There is a closely connected word paradidomi, meaning to hand over or to deliver. The occurrences of the former are as in Note 1 below and those of the latter relevant to this brief study are as in Note 2. We consider first:

Tradition which is according to truth

All New Testament teaching came from the Father, by means of the Son and the Holy Spirit, and reached us through the apostles. The teaching of the Lord Jesus was not His own, but the Father's who sent Him. This He emphasized on such occasions as John 7:16, 8:26-28. But it was impossible for the apostles to receive, remember and transmit to others by their own strength of mind the profound things He taught them. So one of the great purposes of the coming of the Spirit was to bring to their remembrance all the Lord had said to them. "Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He shall guide you into all the truth; for He shall not speak from Himself; but what things soever He shall hear, these shall He speak: and He shall declare unto you the things that are to come" (John 16:13). So although the Spirit's ministry was exceeding wide, He too spoke only what was given Him to impart.

The truths of the New Testament were first handed down or handed on from the Father by means of the Son and through the Holy Spirit "unto the apostles whom He had chosen". As a consequence these truths became known as "the apostles' teaching". What they received in commandment from the Lord through the Spirit they delivered to others. Thus, what was handed on to them they in turn handed down to others.

The disciples in the early churches of God received their spiritual instruction from the apostles' teaching. In due course the apostle Paul, by divine revelation, made a noteworthy contribution to this teaching and some of his references to this are of particular interest, such as:

1 Cor. 11:2, "Now I praise you that ye... hold fast the traditions,

even as I delivered them to you".

2 Thess. 2:15, "So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions

which ye were taught, whether by word, or by epistle of ours".

2 Thess. 3:6, "... withdraw yourselves from every brother that

walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which they received

of us".

So, in due course, the whole tradition of truth judged by God adequate for the present dispensation of grace became known as "the faith... once for all delivered unto the saints". And we are bound to thank God that when, in His overruling, the canon of the New Testament was fixed nothing was included save the inspired writings of the apostles and certain of the prophets immediately associated with them in the traditions of truth.

But there is also

Tradition which is according to error

God's law for Israel His people was adequate 'for the inspiration and regulation of life and conduct for the entire Old Covenant period. This is significantly borne out in His final word to the remnant of the nation in Malachi 4:4, "Remember ye the law of Moses My servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, even statutes and judgements". That word had sufficed for some 1100 years and in the divine mind was adequate for another 400 years, when the Faith of the New Covenant would be introduced.

But that was not the view of the Rabbis of Israel. In the 400-year period between the two Testaments they wrote extensively, adapting as they thought the law of Moses to meet the changing times and conditions in Israel. The Talmud became supremely authoritative and teachings such as those of Hillel and Shammai "final for confirmation".

When "the Teacher come from God" was here He made frequent reference to the law of Moses, upholding and honouring it till His own teaching would become God's final authoritative word for the new dispensation. This of necessity brought Him into sharp conflict with those who adhered to the Rabbinical writings. One day the Pharisees and scribes from Jerusalem challenged the disciples for transgressing "the tradition of the elders", by eating with unwashed hands. He said in reply, "Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?" (Matt. 15:3). Again, "Ye have made void the Word of God because of your tradition" (v.6). And again, "Ye hypocrites, well did

Isaiah prophesy of you... In vain do they worship Me, teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men" (vv.7-9).

The Lord Jesus thus laid down the principle that there can be handed down by men teachings and precepts which are contrary to the supreme Scriptures, and that to observe them is to transgress the Word of God and to render it void and meaningless.

We believe this to be a matter of profound relevance in the ecclesiastical world today. The great cry of Luther and the Reformers was "Sola Scriptura" - the Scriptures alone, the Word of God supreme. But fundamental New Testament teachings have been set aside and are being transgressed on every hand today, the traditions of men handed down over the centuries making them void, meaningless.

Nor is this new. By the close of the first century A.D. false teachers had arisen and they presided over congregations having itching ears, exactly as the Spirit foresaw and as Paul in particular foretold. Traditional error swept in and swept away such fundamental truths in the teaching of the Lord as the simple Breaking of the Bread in churches composed solely of disciples who had been baptized by immersion, in which the gifts of the ascended Lord operated free of the clergy as a separate class, in which elders served and ruled without any powerful bishoprics, all the churches being united in a fellowship of assemblies throughout the then known world.

One example alone will require to suffice for this present study, that of the abandonment of baptism of disciples by immersion and the introduction of the sprinkling of infants. Volumes have been written in defence of this appalling traditional error. We quote, for example, from Dean Stanley's Christian Institutions. "For the first thirteen centuries the almost universal practice of Baptism was that of which we read in the New Testament, and which is the very meaning of the word 'baptize' that those who were baptized were plunged, submerged, immersed into water... But since the beginning of the seventeenth century the practice has become exceeding rare.... The reason of the change is obvious. the practice of immersion, though peculiarly suitable to the Southern and Eastern countries for which it was designed, was not found seasonable in the countries of the North and West... Speaking generally, the Christian civilized world has decided against it. It is a striking example of the triumph of common sense and convenience over the bondage of form and custom" (pp.19-21). Thus the tradition of human thinking has manifestly transgressed the plain commandment of God and made the symbolic significance of baptism so utterly void and meaningless as to be completely lost to view.

When infant sprinkling came into use is not definitely known. But so far as our own day is concerned, chap. XXVIII of the Westminster Confession reads, "Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins... Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person ... also the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized".

No matter how some may argue against it, the fact remains that rooted in the minds of very many people is the idea that saving grace is conferred at their sprinkling. By reason of this grave error a sense of self-righteousness is developed in years of understanding which contests the explicit decision of God that salvation is alone through a conscious heart-submission to the claims of Christ as Saviour. Thus another basic principle in the all-authoritative teaching of the Lord Jesus is plainly transgressed by the erroneous tradition of men.

Other illustrations of present-day traditions of men transgressing the New Testament commandment of God will come readily to the mind of many of our readers. There is a tremendous need in an ecumenically minded day, for Christians to examine carefully their ecclesiastical connexion and to make absolutely certain that there is no provision made in it for any human tradition which is transgressing and making void any single part of the faith once for all delivered to the saints.

If there is, God's command is clear, "Come ye out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch no unclean thing" (2 Cor. 6:17). That is ecclesiastical, not moral, uncleanness. And again, "Let every one that nameth the name of the Lord depart from unrighteousness'(2 Tim. 2:19). That is ecclesiastical, not moral, unrighteousness.

We would encourage exercised readers who may feel themselves caught up in traditions of ecclesiastical error, or who may be having serious thoughts on the subject, to share their problem with the editors or the writer, address as shown on the back page.

Note 1

Matt. 15:2,3,6; Mark 7:3,5,8,9,13; 1 Cor. 11:2 (R.V.); Gal. 1:14; cal. 2:8; 2 Thess. 2:15:3:6.

Note 2

Mark 7:13; Luke 1:2; 10:22; Acts 6:14; 16:4; Ram. 6:17; 1 car. 11:2,23; 15:3; 2 Pet. 2:21;

Jude 3.

J.L Ferguson, Barrhead | Nov 1976
General