Mere Human Tradition

Calvin's Return to Scripture

It is often stated that Calvin and the reformers rejected the magisterium of the Roman Catholic (RC) church in exchange for the tradition of Calvin, Luther, or some other reformer. Essentially, the critique is that the Protestant church is no better than the RC church. The RCs have a tradition and the Protestants have theirs. The difference? The RCs will insist that the Protestant churches chose a tradition that started in the 16th century, the RCs identify their tradition as having been given by Christ. Of course, the Protestants assert the same.

Catholics assert that their tradition is the “deposit of faith” which Jesus and the 12 Apostles left behind. This “deposit of faith,” as Peter Kreeft calls it, “is comprised of the Church’s data, given to her by her Lord,” (Catholic Christianity (CC), p. 18) and that the data is¹ “complete because the tradition was completely given be Christ two thousand years ago to his Church,” (CC, p. 19).

If the RC doctrines were given by Christ and the Apostles, then it would be an imperative to follow them; however, they are not. The four Marian dogmas of the RC church are good examples. While there may be some indication of some basic Marian beliefs (such as the Theotokos or “God-Bearer” and Mary, Mother of God), there are very little grounds to ascribe to qualities such as perpetual virginity or Queen of Heaven or to direct prayer to her. The first two of these may be consistent with orthodoxy, but they need not be accepted for one to be a Christian. They are debatable points of theology that we may never have solid answers to while on earth, yet they are indisputable dogmas of the RC church that are supposedly traceable to the deposit of faith left to us by the Apostles.

The problem is that things are made up over the course of history for a wide variety of reasons and are adopted by the RC church not because they are correct, but because it was expedient. Enter Calvin.

Calvin and the reformers proposed sola scriptura to counter this tendency of relying on the manufactures of man. The Genevan Confession states:

The ordinances that are necessary for the internal discipline of the Church, and belong solely to the maintenance of peace, honesty and good order in the assembly of Christians, we do not hold to be human traditions at all, in as much as they are composed under the general command of Paul, where he desires that all be done among them decently and in order. But all laws and regulations made binding on conscience which oblige the faithful to things not commanded by God, or establish another service of God than that which he demands, thus tending to destroy Christian liberty, we condemn as perverse doctrines of Satan, in view of our Lord's declaration that he is honored in vain by doctrines that are the commandment of men. It is in this estimation that we hold pilgrimages, monasteries, distinctions of foods, prohibition of marriage, confessions and other like things.

It is clear that the author (likely Calvin but indisputably an important Reformation figure in Geneva), is condemning manufactured tradition, which the RC church is blatantly responsible for. He is not criticizing tradition. In fact, all Christians accept tradition—the Christian tradition.

The Christian tradition is what the Apostles left behind—the New Testament. That is the “deposit of faith,” not Papal pronouncements. It is not what Calvin left behind either. Reformed churches hold to one primary standard—Scripture. The Old Testament and New Testament in their original languages. That is what guides the churches. Every other standard can be altered. Confessions, catechisms, and books of church order can be amended, either for practical or Scriptural concerns. The secondary and tertiary standards of the Church are not tradition in the sense that Kreeft uses it. Scripture is tradition and everything else should consistent with it.

The works of Calvin are not tradition in this sense. His works are not even classified as secondary or tertiary standards, though his influence is indisputable. If anything in Calvin contradicts the primary standard of the church—Scripture—which is the Word of God and the tradition of Jesus and the Apostles, then it must be rejected. Calvin is not immune to critique. The RC magisterium—in as far as dogma is concerned—claims to be immune to critique.

Even if most of Calvin is wrong, the basic of insight of bringing teaching to bear with Scripture stands. We should not accept Calvin’s teachings are indisputable. In as far as they are contradictory or absent from Scripture, his teachings are not part of the “deposit of faith.”

Of course, some people elevate Calvin to the same position that the RC magisterium enjoys. They consider him to be an indisputable source of theology. No theological or academic movement is immune to such idolatry. It is, of course, wrong to do so. Anywhere we see such nonsense, it should be admonished and rejected.

One can see from this short article, that the Reformation church does not reject tradition, but embrace it. The Reformation church embraces this tradition and rejects the RC man-made tradition. We must reject mere human tradition as being necessary for the faithful.

1. I am a firm believer in “data is,” not “data are.”