One of the chief complaints that I hear against Catholicism is that they follow “traditions of men” rather than the laws of God.  I find it quite shocking that Christians, and specifically Adventists, have continued to regurgitate this kind of fallacious argument.  All Christians, Adventists included, accept traditions that have been handed down through each of our denominations and local congregations.  From things such as:

Of course there are several other examples of silly and not so silly traditions that we held to as Protestants.  Are traditions bad?  Absolutely not, in fact the Bible commands us to hold to the traditions that were handed down by the early Church leaders. Look at the following texts:

(1 Cor 11:1 NASB)  Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.
(1 Cor 11:2 NASB)  Now I praise you because you remember me in everything, and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.

Notice, this verse not only mentions the existence of traditions, but also COMMANDS us to hold firmly to them.  This is generally something that the SDA Churches don’t claim to do.  When was the last time in the Adventist Church that you heard about the traditions that were handed down by the Apostles?

Some may say, “Well, that only means the written Word, isn’t that correct?”  Look at these next couple of passages:

(2 Tim 1:12 NIV)  That is why I am suffering as I am. Yet I am not ashamed, because I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that he is able to guard what I have entrusted to him for that day.
(2 Tim 1:13 NIV)  What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus.
(2 Tim 1:14 NIV)  Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you--guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us.

This verse is specifically talking about holding to teachings that were passed down through verbal transmission.

(2 Tim 2:2 NASB)  And the things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also.

This verse too is specifically talking about holding to teachings that were passed down through verbal transmission.

(2 Th 2:15 NASB)  So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

Finally, this last verse commands us to hold to BOTH the written and the oral traditions.  If these were always the same, why would the Apostle have specifically instruct us to hold fast to BOTH forms of tradition.  The oral traditions are completely ignored by the majority of the Adventist Church.  As Adventists we were told to follow the whole Bible, yet, NEVER in my years as an Adventist did I read or hear about how I could stand firm and hold to the traditions handed down by mouth.  Why?  Because since the Adventist Church was not founded by Christ and the Apostles, it does not know what they are, and in fact, rejects Tradition as authoritative.

Finally, what was John’s, if not all the Apostles, preferred way of delivering truth?  Was it by Bible studies?  Revelation Seminars?  Scripture Expositions?  Or simply teaching as the Church was commanded to do?  This next verse tells us at least what seems to be the preference of one Apostle:

(2 John 1:12 NASB)  Having many things to write to you, I do not want to do so with paper and ink; but I hope to come to you and speak face to face, that your joy may be made full.

Notice that writing did NOT seem to be the preferred method of communication.  So, why would we think that everything we were supposed to know was written down? We cannot be sure that we have all there is to know through Scripture, but we can be sure we have all we need to know if we trust the institution that was setup specifically for the purpose of teaching the body of Christ, and that is the Church.  Not the Scriptures alone, but the Scriptures (Written Traditions) coupled with the Oral Traditions that were deposited in the teaching authority of the Church.  (Magesterium).

Church History:

Every Day in our lives we live out the history and tradition that has been handed down for days, weeks, months, even years.  Maybe it’s the time of family worship, or dinner, or maybe just an unspoken rule that everyone will gather back at our parents place every Saturday for lunch.

This is tradition and history in our individual lives.  Is it written down anywhere, probably not?  Is it commanded?  I doubt it!  Is it wrong?  Absolutely not!  But everyone knows it is what is expected, practiced, and followed by family members.  Tradition is much like that!  There are some who accuse the Catholic Church of making up new doctrines that are not Biblical, or following tradition INSTEAD of the Bible.

Of course these accusations are false, and can be easily disproved with simple logic and an honest mind.  As Protestants we picked and chose what we were going to agree with and what we won’t.  For example, the Holy Trinity was a doctrine that was defined without clear Biblical proof, but as Adventists we accepted it as truth, even though there is not one single verse that we can point to with a clear explanation of the Trinity!  However, this was not always the case, in fact, up until after the death of Ellen G White, the SDA Church as a whole was quite Anti-Trinitarian.  But the Church men and women grew in their knowledge and re-invented the wheel that had been invented already by earlier Church leaders back in the first few centuries after Christ.

You see, it was generally accepted, although not explicitly written in Scripture, that God was a Triune God and that Christ was Divine.  This was a sacred tradition of the Church established by Christ.  At some point in the early Church history, there arose some who began to challenge this “Tradition”.  It was at this point that the Church through her teaching authority stepped in and dogmatically defined the doctrines of the divinity of Christ and the Trinity on the basis of Tradition AND Scripture.

One way we can come to a greater understanding of tradition is by studying the writings of the early Church fathers that came before us.  As an Adventist, I had been encouraged to read books by Uriah Smith, Ellen White, and other early Adventist Leaders, but never in my memory can I recall a time I was pointed to Clement of Rome, or Polycarp.  Just as we look into Scripture to see what the Apostles taught, we can look into early Church writings to see what was understood and practiced by early Church leaders and followers.

If they had one understanding, (often being taught directly by the Apostles), and yet I have another understanding 2000 years later, who do you think is closer to the true source?  I would put my money on a disciple of the Apostles!

I have heard several times, and I used to believe foolishly, that anyone can read the Bible and come to the same understanding that I or the Adventist Church had, if they would just put aside all their preconceived notions and be honest.  I now believe that to be a lie, and very judgmental of the intentions and sincerity of others who disagree with you.  Let’s be honest, the Bible is an extremely difficult book to understand.  Sure, there are parts that are simple and direct, but the much of the Bible is hard!!

In the Old Testament, the priests were charged with teaching the people what the Scriptures said, and then explaining to them what it meant.  The OT Church had teaching authority.  Why?  Many of the people did not understand the writings of Moses.  In fact, many of them probably could not read the Scriptures even if they wanted to read them. There were probably so few copies of the law, that very few people even saw a copy of the Old Testament.  They had to trust the Old Testament Church, the priests, to correctly convey the meaning.  Often this meant they explained it using rabbinic tradition.

Now, let’s fast forward to the New Testament.  Tradition was and is necessary to reach the people, especially those who can’t read, or don’t have access to Scripture.  There was no New Testament in 100AD, 200AD, or even 300AD, therefore there was not a Bible as we understand it.  The only way for the Christians to learn about Christ, was through the oral and written traditions of the Church.  Christianity was not an elite club for the literate only, it did not matter if you had never even seen a Scripture, the Church went on and you could be part of it!

Now, move 1500 years later, and the Protestant reformers thought that this system, which had kept the Church of Christ alive for 1500 years, was not good enough.  This system which had been established by Christ, through the Church, was not good enough; instead the reformers taught that when they (the reformers) read the Scriptures, they were much more knowledgeable than the Church and therefore could give a better interpretation than the Church institution which Christ had endowed with the teaching authority.  I think it is blasphemy to suppose that your own method of arriving at truth is better than that which the Apostles by the authority of God, established.

The saddest part is that millions of people are still practicing this mistake today.  They subvert the teaching authority that Christ invested in the Church and think they themselves can arrive at all truth by reading a book that was brought forth by the very Church they claim to discredit with it.  Is the creation somehow better than the creator?  Do you see how this is exalting yourself above the throne of God and saying, “Yes God, I know you created a living Church with teaching authority, but I don’t need it, I can read this book and find out everything I need to know… The Bible you never commanded or asked anyone to compile is my final authority, even though you never told us to use it that way.”

Acts Chapter 8 tells us a story of a man who was reading Isaiah, but could not understand it until Philip explained it to him:

(Acts 8:26 NASB)  But an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip saying, "Arise and go south to the road that descends from Jerusalem to Gaza." (This is a desert road.)
(Acts 8:27 NASB)  And he arose and went; and behold, there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure; and he had come to Jerusalem to worship.
(Acts 8:28 NASB)  And he was returning and sitting in his chariot, and was reading the prophet Isaiah.
(Acts 8:29 NASB)  And the Spirit said to Philip, "Go up and join this chariot."
(Acts 8:30 NASB)  And when Philip had run up, he heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, "Do you understand what you are reading?"
(Acts 8:31 NASB)  And he said, "Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?" And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

(Acts 8:32 NASB)  Now the passage of Scripture which he was reading was this: "HE WAS LED AS A SHEEP TO SLAUGHTER; AND AS A LAMB BEFORE ITS SHEARER IS SILENT, SO HE DOES NOT OPEN HIS MOUTH.
(Acts 8:33 NASB)  "IN HUMILIATION HIS JUDGMENT WAS TAKEN AWAY; WHO SHALL RELATE HIS GENERATION? FOR HIS LIFE IS REMOVED FROM THE EARTH."
(Acts 8:34 NASB)  And the eunuch answered Philip and said, "Please tell me, of whom does the prophet say this? Of himself, or of someone else?"
(Acts 8:35 NASB)  And Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him.

Notice that Philip never appealed to Scripture as the sole rule of faith… in fact; he didn’t expect the eunuch to understand the Scriptures, THEY CAN BE VERY HARD TO UNDERSTAND!  So instead, Philip preaches to the eunuch and he was saved.  Philip, later in the chapter baptizes him, not after Bible Studies, not after Old Testament classes, but after having been taught at the hand of the Church, what Scripture meant.  Imagine if the eunuch had told Philip, “Well, no I don’t understand, but I don’t need you ‘pontificating’ it to me either.  All I need is this Scripture, if I look at it long enough, want it bad enough, I will understand, then I will find you if I agree with your interpretation of it!”

Isn’t that what we do?  We try to decipher the Bible as best we can, then try to find a designer Church that teaches the Bible the same way we understand it!   What I found, and I hope you can see, is that the only truly Biblical position allows for a teaching authority to explain to us when we have erred.  Otherwise, who is to say my understanding of the Scripture is not better and more accurate than yours?  The standard would go no higher than me if I believed in Sola Scriptura.  Christ did not believe in Sola Scriptura, which is why his personal teaching did not have to be written in Scripture before it was authoritative.  The Apostles did not believe in Sola Scriptura.  The early Church did not believe in Sola Scriptura.  The current Church, with traceable succession back to the Apostles, does not teach sola scriptura.  Only those who broke off from the Catholic Church 1500 years after it’s inception believe in this false doctrine.  A doctrine which CLEARY is not scriptural or from God.