Introduction

Pursuing the theme of apologetics has brought us to the major passages of Scripture on this subject of readiness for defense of the faith. 1 Peter 3 (especially v. 15) gives an outline in miniature form of the basics of apologetics (cf. its ultimate presupposition, relentless quality, logical nature, and gentle manner). But Colossians 2 runs a close second in being the most important text on apologetics. It probes a presuppositional depth when it gives an autonomy warning (v. 8, not dependent on Christ) and a call to not only understand layers of thinking (cf. "x depends on y that is based on z) but to expose the folly of autonomy in others and in ourselves.

Today I want to continue to mine implications from the rich vein of Colossians 2 by considering "Biblical Tradition" in three ways: It is implied in our text, it opposes autonomy rooted religious tradition, and it therefore condemns Roman Catholic church tradition.

1A. Biblical tradition is implied in the contrast with human tradition

It is important to clearly see the implied contrast between tradition in a negative sense and tradition in a positive sense since not all tradition is bad. The negative sense is stated in Colossians 2:8. It implies a contrasting tradition that does depend on Christ. And we do not have to look far to see that Paul has this contrast specifically in mind.

Dependence on Christ includes continuing in the faith you were taught and continuing to live in Christ as you "received" Him (vs. 6-7). The faith taught and received that centers on Christ is another way of speaking of biblical tradition. Paul talks like this about communion that is a tradition he received and passed on to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 11:2, 23). These things about communion are directives for church practice (1 Cor. 11:17). This tradition is the way of life that Paul says, "agrees with what I teach everywhere in every church" (1 Cor. 4:17) and its written form is a standard beyond which no one is to go (1 Cor. 4:6). Here is a text (1 Cor. 4:6) that is as close as Scripture gets to a direct and explicit statement of Sola Scriptura. In other words, the written teaching tradition that is to govern and guide the church is the Biblical tradition (the tradition that is written, the Scriptures). That tradition, the biblical tradition/Scripture is the standard beyond which no one is to go.

This biblical tradition (the Bible as tradition) had an oral form before it was written down so the notion of tradition is somewhat larger than Scripture. Tradition is the authoritative word from God that was taught by the apostles first orally and then put to writing (2 Thess. 2:15, by word of mouth refers to oral proclamation in contrast to letter that refers to written expression). What is "received" is not simply the word of men but is in actuality the very word of God (1 Thess. 2:13). As such it is the truth, the gospel, and the normative traditions received from the apostles (2 Thess. 3:6). Scripture is the written aspect of the tradition handed down by Christ to the apostles.

Therefore we can speak of the biblical tradition over against human tradition that is rooted in autonomy and that is argued within the framework of false philosophy (it has a fine-sounding appearance but is actually deceptive at a foundational level).

2A. Biblical tradition opposes autonomy rooted religious tradition

Now let's look at human tradition more closely. In this negative sense, human tradition may include Scripture within it. When it does, subtly and deception get a strong foothold. Here in Colossians the human commands and teachings not only included a mixture of Greek teachings (2:22-23) but also Old Testament teachings misused and misunderstood (2:16-17). Hence, we are very close in thought to the toxic tradition of the elders that Jesus interacted with and condemned. One example text, that shows strong similarities to the Colossian context, is Mark 7:1-13. The demand that a ceremonial washing or baptism take place prior to eating (v. 4) is a rule taught by men whose hearts are far from God (vs. 6-7). They "have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men" (v. 8). But they also incorporate the commands of God into their tradition in order to set them aside: "You have a fine way of setting aside the command of God in order to observe your own tradition" (v. 9). The emphasis here on "your own" tradition shows that the assertion of human autonomy is the ultimate presupposition. The "fine way" of setting God's authority aside reminds us of the "fine-sounding arguments" cited by Paul.

Consequently, we should not miss the point that one of the ways that sin manifests itself is in religion. Asserted autonomy may work hard at being anti-religious or at least irreligious but it may also work hard, even devilishly, at being religious including being professedly Christian.

It is no surprise to learn that autonomous people exchange the truth of God for a lie and that they worship and serve the creature rather than the Creator (Rom. 1:25). But they still have a form of worship and an appearance of philosophy. Claiming to be wise they became fools (Rom. 1:22) and their foolish hearts were darkened (Rom. 1:24).

It should therefore not surprise us to discover that autonomy rooted tradition exists within the history of Christianity. Nor should it surprise us to learn that it is condemned by biblical tradition. Just such a tradition exists in Roman Catholicism to which we not turn our attention.

3A. Biblical tradition therefore condemns autonomy rooted Roman Catholic tradition

We should begin this section by saying that no matter how good the tradition may be that comes to us from church history such tradition contrasts sharply with biblical tradition. And we should be very clear about what is meant by this contrast. At bottom, all church tradition involves fallible interpretation and therefore all church tradition is subordinate to Scripture. The biblical tradition is the final, absolute, and only infallible standard for church doctrine and practice. But Catholicism denies that all church tradition involves fallible interpretation and it denies that all church tradition is subordinate to Scripture (cf. Peters on 21 reasons to reject Sola Scriptura).

This is an example on a mega-scale showing that autonomous/religious man has some tricks up his sleeve regarding this important notion of the authority of biblical tradition (Scripture). It helps clarify the debate to speak of Scripture as biblical tradition over against church tradition. The issue is not over the notion of tradition but over the notion of authority. Plainly stated, it is an issue of the Bible versus the church or of God's word versus man's word.

Sophistry or trickery of words

In terms of the Colossians passage, the analogue to the worship of angels, to self-imposed worship, is the worship of Mary and other saints in heaven and the notion of transubstantiation. It is deceptive (sophistry, a trickery of words) to go so far as to change the numbering of the Ten Commandments in order to preserve the use of idols in the church (Catholic numbering of the Ten Commandments combines the first two and splits the tenth). It is trickery of words to say that the body and blood of Christ are present in their essence but not their visible qualities (this distinction between essence and visible qualities comes from philosophy not Scripture). The visible qualities we sense are those of bread and wine. But the essence, they say, is the actual body and blood of Christ, present miraculously.

No matter what passages are cited for any of these things, no matter how few passages even pertain in the slightest way, it is the tradition of the church which ends all debate as to what is the biblical teaching. This is a slight of hand of the human autonomy taproot that leads to various noxious fruits.

How tricky and deceitful to directly deny Sola Scriptura based on by Church authority and to do so in the name of Christ. Duly translated this means that the assertion of human autonomy informs us that Scripture cannot be our final authority! Therefore, the only reasonable way to come up with true Christian teachings is to accept the human, fallible, tradition of the Catholic Church. They will try to show that this view of Catholic tradition is has some ground in Scripture and church history. But where difference of opinion arises over details from Scripture or church history, it is the autonomy-rooted philosophy of Catholic tradition that shapes, colors, and decides the issue. If we are not alert to the trickery of autonomy driven philosophy, then we are prone to deception, captivity, and spiritual stagnation if there is any spiritual life in the first place (Col. 2:23).

Praying to Mary is a case in point

Is praying to Mary, as argued by Catholics, like asking other Christians to pray for us? Again notice the trickery of words that emerges to avoid equating Mary with God as a recipient of prayer, adoration, and thus worship (even though this is done on your knees in the posture of reverent prayer). Some comments should be made on this point.

a) First, in this line of argument, prayer is supposedly not made to Mary but through her. But it is obvious that she has to be prayed to in order for her to pray on our behalf (you must begin with the "to" to get to the supposed "through"). b) Second, she is elevated to a status of a mediator when there is only one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus (1 Tim. 2:5). c) Third, when we ask other Christians to pray for us we do so because the saints have an important work to do ("one-anothering") while living on earth. Accordingly, the tone and tenor of Paul's tension between continuing in this life or going to Christ, which is far better, indicates that his service to the Philippians is limited to his time on earth (Phi. 1:21-25). If that is true for an apostle, how much more must it be true for Mary and all other saints that their work is limited to their time on earth. That "their deeds will follow them" (Rev. 14:13) confirms the fact that the works (prayers, services, ministries) that "exist" beyond their death are the works done on earth. These and these alone have historical value. d) Fourth, the Lord considers "consulting" with the dead to be a detestable practice (Deut. 18:11-12). e) Finally, last but not least, it is to be observed that the whole doctrine of the elevation of Mary rests on Church tradition. The sharp distinctions, the trickery of words, and the detestable practice itself does not come from Scripture but goes against Scripture (Also, consider the inconsistency of elevating Mary the way Church tradition does on the basis of Elizabeth calling her blessed, Luke 1:42 but not elevating the sister of Lazarus even though Jesus says she will be remembered throughout church history per Matthew 26:6-13, Mark 14:3-9, and John 12:2-8). This is an example of the radical importance of Sola Scriptura. Without Scripture as our tradition that was given to the apostles as the foundation of the church, a window is opened for all kinds of amalgamations like those at Colosse that combined Greek, Jewish, and Christian teaching. With a smile and in the name of Christ, Catholic tradition tells us to do exactly what Scripture forbids us to do. It tells us to worship someone other than God (Matt. 4:10), to pray and consult with the dead (Deut. 18:11-12), and to have an intercessor in heaven other than Christ (1 Tim. 2:5). These are but a few examples of the can of worms that is opened when we do not adhere to the ultimate and final authority of Scripture. Christian nurture becomes a virtual diet of worms!

It is deceptive philosophy. It is apparent but not real wisdom. The humility that comes to expression in worship is false humility. The humble posture of the worshipper who bows in prayer to Mary is not what it seems to be. It has a pious look but at its core is serious sin. It is the sin of attempted autonomy made all the worse for its cloak of piety.

The denial of Sola Scriptura is the assertion of human authority. Again, we are face to face with the taproot of autonomy cited by Paul in Colossians 2. There is deceptive argument that will ensnare us if we are not careful on the matter of autonomy. Autonomy shaped worship is of no value in spiritual growth. Praying to Mary and other concoctions of autonomous piety are of no value in the spiritual life of a professing Christian. It is rather a testimony to just the opposite showing a heart that chooses to live under human religious authority rather than under the authority of God by His word alone.

A. A most serious warning

Whatever else might be said about this issue, one thing is most important to bear in mind. We are given a serious warning regarding the departure from dependence on Christ by substituting human tradition as a replacement for divine tradition. This is the great sin of the Catholic church at a presuppositional level. It is a sin of asserted human autonomy that nullifies, distorts, misuses, and misunderstands God's authority confronting us in His written word. It is blatant, bold, and shameful to forthrightly attack God's word as sole authority and to do so on the asserted basis of the infallible authority of the church. It is thus claimed that according to the teaching of the Catholic Church "Sola Scriptura is a distorted, truncated view of Christian authority" (Peters, Scripture Alone? p. 64). Thus it is claimed that only by accepting the complete rule of faith given in Catholic tradition "that the followers of Christ are assured of possessing the whole truth which Christ taught, and nothing but that truth" (Ibid.). In other words, with bold and fine-sounding arguments the Catholic Church argues for sola human tradition that it is rooted in human autonomy and that bears the noxious fruits of deceptive philosophy and the mere appearance of wisdom. How, according to Peters, do we get the whole truth and nothing but the truth regarding the teachings of Christ? It is not by Scripture alone, not by God's written word alone, but by human tradition alone that incorporates Scripture under its umbrella of human authority. Catholic tradition thereby runs Scripture through its meat grinder of asserted autonomy and develops an unstable doctrinal amalgamation. And the trickiest play of all is that the doctrine of Scriptural authority, of Sola Scriptura, must be tested as to whether it is true or not by the standard of human tradition as final authority.

This mixture of the gospel with human autonomy, this shaping and governing of the word of God by human authority, is truly as dangerous as it is deceptive. The Roman Catholic, Peters, is correct when he states that man-made doctrine risks "one's spiritual well-being, and even one's eternal destiny" (p. 3). But he has the shoe on the wrong foot. On one hand, he complains that teaching that God's word is the sole and final authority concerning Christ (Sola Scriptura) is a man-made doctrine. On the other hand, he (and the Catholic Church as a whole) believes that teaching that human tradition is the sole and final authority concerning Christ (sola human autonomy) is God-made doctrine. It should be obvious that the shoes are reversed. It would be as obvious as the nose on your face if it were not cloaked in fine-sounding argument that advances deceptive philosophy.

B. Distinguishing interpretation from authority yields responsibility

We are Roman Catholic like when we want to know what to believe by decree of the church, the pastor, or even reformed theology without our own personal engagement in study and argument. The checking and re-checking spirit is the reformed spirit (the church and the Christian that is always reforming). We must always go to Scripture looking for the truth, the truth we may have misconstrued, with a willingness to change in obedience to Christ.

One major difference regarding tradition and human authority in interpretation between Catholics and Protestants is the acknowledgement by the Protestant and the denial by the Catholic that the distinct traditions are mere human interpretations. Given that all interpretive traditions rest on human authority, the Protestant acknowledges human fallibility.

This necessitates that all the people of God study the Scriptures and that all have the right, duty and privilege to test all things and to hold to the good. This means that every Christian has the duty of a believer priest in the things of God. Every believer has a duty to be informed on biblical teaching. Every believer has the duty to study to show himself approved to God rightly handling the word. Every believer has to tackle arguments and work through them to sound conclusions. This is especially important for the spiritual heads of homes as the foundation from which they seek to nurture their wives and with their wives nurture their children.

This work of husbands and wives kicks things back to the ministry of the word in church. The minister has the responsibility to show the basis for his views. The ministry of the word is proclamation but it is also defense. It is both all the time in various ways. The pastor must work very hard at finding the truth. What he believes to be true he must not only proclaim as true but he must work at showing it to be true. He must do so always mindful of the fact that his work is fallible and subject to correction by Scripture. It is an ongoing process of re-examination of every doctrine piece by piece. The ministry of the word is dynamic as we all become more and more familiar with Scripture pressing ahead to learn and obey. In this light, I truly believe that your questions, disagreements, and challenges are a great help to me in toting the line. The more we interact on matters the more aware I am of lines of biblical teaching that are pressing you in this way and that. Awareness of these lines of biblical teaching helps me get a better and better view of the whole. When I say have roast pastor or a roast sermon for dinner I say that with confidence that I have done my homework and that you can get something from the sermon. But this does not spill over to a claim of infallibility. That belongs only to Scripture to which we must all submit with a clear conscience.

I teach from the resources of the reformed tradition. But that tradition is not infallible. As a church we believe that it is the best of traditions. We will work at testing it by Scripture and sometimes taking a different position than the reformed confessions (as for example on the subjects of baptism). We use the reformed tradition as a teaching guide and a good one at that. We want to neither underestimate nor overestimate the importance and value of the reformed tradition. We continue to study it, to compare it with other traditions of biblical interpretation, and to compare it most of all with Scripture. There is no point in the confession that is not subject to Scriptural authority (sinful tradition cited in Colossians is taking human tradition as our authority with Scripture incorporated into it).

Thus, each conscience is bound to God, to His word in Scripture alone. We are to use church traditions, including Catholic tradition as teaching guides and no more. They are fallible and subject to God's word.

Anyone may "fake it" in the eyes of others. Tricks abound. "You can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time" (Lincoln). Lincoln's words can be adapted in our context in this way: "you can fool everyone some of the time but you can fool God at no time. As a matter of fact, if you seek to fool the eyes of others you make yourself a fool in the eyes of God." We are to be an open book before Him. We do this by submitting ourselves to His infallible Book. And that we have in the biblical tradition.