Canon vs. Tradition—A Reformation Perspective
Article 5 (Series 1)
Introduction
From the earliest centuries of Christian history, there has been a perennial tension between Scripture and Tradition. At stake is the question of final authority in matters of faith and practice: is the Church dependent on a singular, inspired canon, or does it rely equally upon a stream of unwritten teachings said to descend from the apostles? This question came to a head at the Reformation, when Protestant theologians, insisting on sola Scriptura, rejected the idea that the Church’s traditions, even if useful in some respects, could ever share the same authority as canonical Scripture.
This fifth article in our series explores how the Reformation perspective re-centered the Church on the biblical canon, demonstrating that, while tradition may serve to illuminate or confirm, it can never found or supersede Scripture. We will trace how tradition evolved and came to be viewed in the Roman Catholic Church, particularly in the period leading up to and including the Council of Trent (1545–1563). We then examine the Reformers’ contention that Scripture holds a primary and unique authority that cannot be conflated with human tradition. In so doing, we draw upon the arguments of Louis Gaussen and William Whitaker, each of whom—albeit in different contexts—underscored the primacy of the canon as the only ultimate rule of faith.
By the close of this discussion, it will be evident why, for confessional Protestants, the elevation of tradition to a co-equal status with Scripture is viewed as a fundamental threat to the sufficiency and clarity of God’s written Word. Conversely, we will see that tradition, rightly understood, can serve as a witness to the Bible but never as its coruler. Ultimately, this Reformation perspective has shaped the course of Western Christianity for the last five centuries, grounding the Church in a faith born of Scripture’s own testimony rather than an amalgamation of inspired and uninspired teachings.
I. Defining Terms: Canon vs. Tradition
Before delving into the Reformation conflict, it is crucial to define the terms at the heart of the debate:
Canon
As established in previous articles, “canon” refers to the divinely inspired writings—those that the Church has recognized as Scripture. Grounded in apostolic authority for the New Testament and prophetic foundation for the Old, canonical books are uniquely God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16), infallible, and authoritative. The Reformation principle of sola Scriptura insists that these canonical books contain all truths necessary for salvation and obedience to God.Tradition
The term “tradition” can have multiple nuances. At its broadest, tradition encompasses the faith and practice passed down across generations—everything from creeds and councils to local liturgical customs. Many in the early Church, such as Basil the Great and John Chrysostom, referred to valuable ecclesial practices as “traditions” that helped sustain communal life. However, the Reformation conflict centered on the Roman Catholic claim (especially after Trent) that certain “unwritten traditions” possessed co-equal authority with Scripture. This was not mere custom or ceremony, but a set of doctrinal and moral teachings which, though absent from the Bible, were deemed apostolic in origin and binding on believers.
A crucial distinction, recognized even by some medieval theologians, is that tradition can be beneficial or clarifying, yet it does not enjoy the status of being divinely inspired in the same sense as canonical Scripture. Where Reformation thought diverged so sharply from the Roman Catholic claim is precisely on whether these extra-scriptural traditions could be regarded as infallible or normative for Christian faith.
II. The Roman Catholic View of Tradition Pre-Trent
While the Roman Catholic approach to tradition did not crystallize overnight, the late medieval period witnessed a gradual intensification of the role of ecclesiastical tradition in shaping doctrine. By the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, theologians such as Jean Gerson and Cardinal Juan de Torquemada wrote extensively about the interplay between Scripture and unwritten traditions, often appealing to patristic precedents that seemed to place both under the Church’s magisterial guidance.
Medieval Developments
In the high Middle Ages, scholastic theologians like Thomas Aquinas certainly affirmed the Bible’s unique status as divinely inspired. Yet they also acknowledged the existence of traditions—explanatory or clarifying teachings—that supplemented biblical revelation. Over time, certain local liturgical practices, doctrinal definitions, and even forms of private devotion (e.g., rosary prayers, veneration of saints) became interwoven with the Church’s understanding of how truth was handed down.By the late medieval era, it was not uncommon for ecclesiastical documents to reference “the authority of the Holy Fathers” as a rationale for certain doctrines or sacraments, even where explicit biblical warrant was lacking. This did not necessarily mean that every medieval theologian equated these traditions with Scripture, but it did lay the groundwork for an expanded “living tradition,” eventually codified at the Council of Trent.
The Council of Trent (1545–1563)
The Reformation catalyzed a more dogmatic stance. Confronted by Protestant appeals to Scripture alone, the Roman Church, in the Fourth Session of Trent (1546), issued a decree proclaiming that the Christian faith was contained in “written books and unwritten traditions,” received by the apostles from Christ Himself or the Holy Spirit, and preserved in the Catholic Church. This pronouncement effectively equalized Scripture and unwritten tradition in terms of authority.William Whitaker, writing after Trent, fixated on this decree, describing it as a hallmark of Roman error that threatened to overshadow the singular authority of biblical revelation. Trent’s move signaled that certain doctrines (e.g., purgatory, veneration of Mary, invocation of saints, sacraments like extreme unction) could rely on tradition as a foundation, even where explicit biblical grounding was scant. This position elevated the Church’s ecclesiastical structures—councils, the papacy, episcopal hierarchies—to a unique role in defining what must be believed.
III. The Reformation’s Return to Biblical Primacy
The Reformation is commonly associated with the term sola Scriptura. This slogan is sometimes misunderstood as rejecting all forms of tradition outright. In reality, leading Reformers like Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, and John Calvin acknowledged the value of early creeds (e.g., Nicene Creed, Chalcedonian Definition), patristic insights, and practical customs that reinforced biblical truth. Their contention, rather, was that no tradition or council could be placed on par with canonical Scripture—the infallible Word of God.
Scripture as the Final Standard
Protestant reformers systematically applied a principle: if a teaching could not be substantiated by clear scriptural evidence, it should not be imposed as a matter of faith. In simpler terms: “what is not in the Bible is not essential to salvation or necessary to believe.” Luther’s translation of the Bible into German and the broader movement of vernacular translations emphasized the conviction that God’s Word, accessible to all believers, should stand above the interpretative monopoly once exercised by ecclesiastical authorities.In so doing, the Reformers parted ways with the scholastic assumption that tradition might supply binding doctrines absent from Scripture. Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion devotes ample attention to the insufficiency of any teaching that cannot be tested by and derived from Scripture. This does not mean the early Church Fathers or councils had nothing to offer—on the contrary, Calvin frequently cites Augustine, Chrysostom, and the Council of Nicaea. Yet he underscores that these authorities serve as witnesses, secondary to the divine testimony contained in biblical texts.
Whitaker’s Disputation on Holy Scripture
Amid these Reformation debates, William Whitaker’s A Disputation on Holy Scripture stands out as a meticulous rejoinder to Roman Catholic arguments. Whitaker challenges the notion that the Church’s tradition can either supersede or add to Scripture:- He carefully demonstrates how the biblical authors, both in the Old and New Testaments, speak of Scripture’s exclusivity and completeness (citing 2 Timothy 3:16–17; Deuteronomy 4:2, etc.).
- He critiques the Council of Trent’s conflation of Scripture and tradition, suggesting that it introduced confusion by granting doctrinal authority to sources untested by apostolic witness.
Essentially, Whitaker’s stance mirrors the confessional posture of many Reformation churches: the Church is accountable to Scripture, not the other way around. Indeed, he frequently references patristic evidence to illustrate that the earliest Christians prized biblical authority above ephemeral local customs or even the pronouncements of revered bishops.
Gaussen’s Critique of Rationalism (a Parallel Theme)
Although Gaussen’s principal adversary was 19th-century rationalism, his principle that Scripture stands on a plane apart from any human tradition parallels Whitaker’s older debate. In Gaussen’s system, the acceptance of Scripture’s divine origin rests on faith, while the acceptance of tradition—especially tradition that is “unwritten and untested”—does not command the same level of trust. Thus, Gaussen effectively upholds the Reformation’s premise that no tradition can compete with canonical Scripture’s divine authority.
IV. Distinguishing Capital-T Tradition from Ecclesiastical Customs
One frequent misconception is that the Reformation’s critique of Roman Catholic “Tradition” implies an absolute repudiation of all historical practices or teachings. This caricature is inaccurate. The Reformers and their successors recognized a legitimate category of beneficial traditions—small-t traditions—encompassing local liturgies, patristic exegeses, or customary prayers. These, while worthy of respect, are not infallible.
Traditional Practices vs. Revealed Doctrine
From the vantage point of confessional Protestantism, a difference obtains between “customs or usages that help the Church function smoothly” (like certain worship orders, the church calendar, etc.) and “doctrinal or moral teachings that claim to be binding upon all believers.” The latter must come from Scripture alone if they are to be regarded as universal and divinely sanctioned.For instance, the practice of reading a lectionary can be beneficial, but it is not mandated by the biblical text in the manner that, say, the administration of baptism or the Lord’s Supper is. Where the Roman Catholic tradition sometimes invests human customs with a theological weight akin to Scripture, the Reformed tradition typically insists on testing every practice by the biblical rule.
The Dangers of Elevating Mere Customs
Throughout Church history, we find examples where local traditions, once popularized, risk overshadowing biblical mandates. Whitaker points to certain medieval beliefs—like the exact formula for indulgences—that developed in a more or less ad hoc manner, eventually being defended as though they were the apostles’ own words. In the Reformation’s perspective, such conflations threatened to blur the line between man-made traditions and God-breathed truths.Gaussen, though not writing primarily against medieval Catholicism, similarly warns that traditions resting on human authority, not on the inspired text, cannot command the same reverence as the biblical canon. Where tradition offers historical clarity, it may be valued; but where it presumes to speak with infallibility or bind the conscience apart from biblical warrant, it usurps an authority that belongs to God alone.
V. Implications for Modern Christianity
The Reformation’s stance on Scripture vs. Tradition continues to shape contemporary ecclesial debates, whether in discussions of ecumenism, doctrinal development, or practical church life. Protestants commonly uphold the principle that if a teaching or practice cannot be firmly anchored in the biblical canon, it should be regarded as secondary or non-binding. Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions, in contrast, often maintain that apostolic truth can legitimately be preserved in unwritten forms, entrusted to the ongoing life of the Church.
Where Tradition Helps
Protestants do not deny that tradition can serve as a valuable teacher of biblical exegesis or an historical witness to how earlier generations interpreted Scripture. Confessions such as the Heidelberg Catechism or the Westminster Confession of Faith themselves form a kind of subordinate tradition, providing coherent summaries that guide church teaching. But confessional documents are always subordinate to and measured by Scripture, never rising to the level of divine authority.Where Tradition Harms
When tradition stands in conflict with or adds to Scripture in a manner that undermines biblical clarity, confessional Protestants see cause for alarm. For instance, if a church teaches dogmas that the faithful must hold—without clear biblical backing—this is precisely the scenario the Reformers worked to correct. In such cases, tradition transforms from a helpful supplement to a potential stumbling block, possibly overshadowing the purity of gospel truth.Even in a post-Reformation era, we see calls to adopt new moral or doctrinal standards that lack scriptural basis, sometimes justified by appeals to “church tradition” or “the church’s ongoing experience.” Historically, Gaussen’s and Whitaker’s warnings hold true: believers must remain vigilant that the boundary between canonical authority and human tradition remains intact.
Ecumenical Dialogues Today
Modern ecumenical efforts between Catholics and Protestants often circle back to the question of Scripture vs. Tradition. While some dialogues emphasize areas of common ground (e.g., shared creeds, reverence for patristic heritage), the underlying disagreement about final authority remains potent. Is the Word of God found exclusively in the biblical canon, or in the canon plus unwritten traditions? The Reformation’s answer—insisting on the sufficiency of Scripture—still informs many Protestant confessions and teaching materials globally.
VI. Conclusion
The clash between canon and tradition, so visible at the Reformation, remains a defining fault line in Christian theology. For confessional Protestants, the biblical canon alone stands as the infallible rule of faith—locus primarius—while tradition has a valid but subordinate role as a teacher, historical witness, and community practice. From Luther to Calvin, from Zwingli to Whitaker, the Reformation was consistent in denouncing any system that blurred the boundary between God’s Word and human commentary, no matter how ancient or widely accepted that commentary might be.
William Whitaker’s incisive A Disputation on Holy Scripture exemplifies the biblical conviction that the Church’s authority to interpret and acknowledge Scripture does not imply an authority to create or expand Scripture’s domain. Rather, the Church is an obedient steward. Gaussen’s position, though aimed primarily at the challenges of rationalism, similarly affirms that genuine spiritual conviction about Scripture’s sufficiency arises by faith—faith in the inspired text and its divine origin. No tradition, however venerable, can replicate this divine mark or impose new doctrines that lack explicit biblical grounding.
Equally important is recognizing that the Reformers did not wholesale reject tradition. Instead, they insisted that tradition must bow to Scripture, tested by the canonical measuring rod and discarded if found incompatible. This principle continues to guide how Protestants approach councils, creeds, and patristic writings: as valuable resources that guide understanding but never share infallible parity with the God-breathed books.
So, does tradition count for nothing? Certainly not. Tradition—in the sense of the universal Church’s inheritance of commentaries, liturgies, and theological insights—can enrich Christian devotion and encourage unity of practice. But tradition crosses a theological line when it is endowed with the same irreformable authority as Scripture, effectively elevating human words to the level of God’s. The Reformation perspective, preserved in many contemporary confessions, remains anchored in this crucial distinction.
In a world that sometimes appears to chase novelty, the emphasis on Scripture’s fixed, God-ordained boundaries acts as a spiritual anchor. And in a religious landscape where some groups call for additional revelations or extra-canonical guides, the Reformation principle stands firm: the canonical Scripture is complete and closed, containing all that is needed for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16). The tradition of the Church may offer clarity, context, and encouragement, but it cannot stand side by side with Scripture as an equal source of revealed truth.
Therefore, “Canon vs. Tradition—A Reformation Perspective” calls believers back to the living Word, offering a vantage point in which Scripture shapes tradition rather than tradition redefining Scripture. This vantage point is consistent with the witness of Gaussen—who champions a faith-centered acceptance of the Bible’s sufficiency—and Whitaker—who demonstrates historically and theologically why no council or ecclesiastical decree can add to the foundation laid by Christ and His apostles. The takeaway for modern Christianity is clear: while tradition has its rightful place, only Scripture holds the unique, infallible authority that can bind the conscience of every believer.
