Tradition and Authority
By Oliver Langworthy
At times, tradition seems to be treated as authoritative simply because it is old, beautiful, or continuous. What is it, exactly, that gives tradition authority if not these things? This article explores how this question has been wrestled with in the past, and what may be learned from those who have undertaken this work of discernment before us. It argues that tradition’s authority is not self-grounding: tradition has authority insofar as it is inspired by the Holy Spirit and serves the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Scripture itself gives us the first and most basic instance of this discernment. It does not treat tradition as automatically authoritative simply because it has been handed down, nor does it reject tradition simply because it is inherited. Rather, Scripture distinguishes between tradition that serves the Word of God and tradition that obscures or rivals it. In Mark 7:8, Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for leaving the ‘commandment of God’ in favour of the ‘tradition of men’ (paradosin tōn anthrōpōn). The problem is not tradition as such, but tradition that has come to stand over against the command of God. A similar concern appears in Colossians 2:8, where Paul warns against being taken captive ‘according to human tradition’ and not according to Christ. Yet 2 Thessalonians 2:15 prevents any simple rejection of tradition, since Paul exhorts his hearers to ‘stand firm and hold to the traditions’ (tas paradoseis) they were taught. Tradition, then, can either hand on the apostolic gospel or obscure the commandment of God.
Two examples of strikingly parallel exegesis of Exodus 12:36, by Augustine of Hippo and Origen of Alexandria, further sharpen this tension. Augustine in On Christian Doctrine 40.60, wrote that even among ‘the fellowship of the heathen’ there is ‘liberal instruction’ which could be turned to the service of truth and ‘excellent precepts of morality’ and ‘even some truths in regard to the worship of the One God’. These, Augustine held, were not their own invention but were ‘dug out of the mines of God’s providence’. Like the gold and silver of the Egyptians, these are to be plundered and turned to ‘their proper use in preaching the Gospel’.[1] Origen of Alexandria, reading Ex 12:36 in the same way, similarly identifies the gold and silver of the Egyptians with specifically Greek philosophy in his letter to Gregory Thaumaturgus.[2] Origen recommends the study of both scripture and philosophy to his student Gregory but warns that, even as the Israelites, aided by the wisdom of God, made the things of the tabernacle and the ark from what they plundered from the Egyptians, so too did Ader the Idumean make a golden idol after returning from Egypt.[3] Origen notes that it is only a few who manage to make something useful from the knowledge of the world, and many more who end up inventing some novel heresy.[4] Augustine and Origen form, each in their own way, part of Christian tradition. While these examples concern their discernment about philosophy, rather than specifically Christian tradition, they highlight a shared and enduring concern for the priority of scripture and that the products of culture outside scripture can be turned to its use with proper discernment.[5]
What then of Christian tradition in particular? In 1539, Jacopo Sadoleto wrote to the churches of Geneva, seeking to persuade them to return to the Roman Catholic Church. John Calvin, though exiled from Geneva the previous year, was asked to reply. Sadoleto urges the Genevese to abandon what he presents as the novelties of the reformers and return to what had been handed down through the church. He describes the humility and obedience of the Catholic position in terms of receiving ‘the things delivered to us, and fixed by the authority of our ancestors, men of the greatest wisdom and holiness,’ as things ‘truly dictated and enjoined by the Holy Spirit.’[6] This is a strong claim about tradition’s authority. Sadoleto is not merely saying that the church’s inherited teaching is ancient, venerable, useful, or beautiful. He is claiming that what has been delivered through the church’s ancestors may be received as dictated and enjoined by the Holy Spirit. Tradition, here, is treated as a Spirit-authorised inheritance, and therefore as something that ought to command the obedience of the church.
Calvin’s reply takes up this claim directly. He laments that he is assailed by ‘the Pope and the Anabaptists,’ who seem superficially different but share a common error: ‘they boast extravagantly of the Spirit’ but ‘sink and bury the Word of God, that they may make room for their own falsehoods.’ Calvin frames this with reference to John Chrysostom: ‘Well, then, does Chrysostom admonish us to reject all who under the pretence of the Spirit lead us away from the simple doctrine of the gospel, the Spirit having been promised not to reveal a new doctrine, but to impress the truth of the gospel on our minds.’[7] Calvin’s appeal to Chrysostom matters. He is not rejecting tradition in order to defend an individualist reading of Scripture.[8] He is using tradition to test a claim about tradition. In other words, neither Calvin nor Sadoleto treat antiquity or continuity as self-authenticating. A tradition does not become authoritative simply because it is old, venerable, ecclesial, or deeply embedded in the church’s life. Even a tradition clothed in the language of the Spirit must be tested by whether it leads the church more deeply into the gospel or away from it.
What the exchange between Sadoleto and Calvin teaches us is that although tradition, like philosophy for Origen and Augustine, may carry the weight of centuries and may be woven deeply into the life, worship, and imagination of the church, none of this, by itself, establishes that a tradition bears the authority of the Spirit. Its authority must be discerned by its relation to the saving gospel. Where tradition bears the inspiration of the Spirit, directs the church to Christ, and helps believers hear and obey the Father, it may be received as a faithful witness. Where it obscures the gospel it must be resisted as merely human tradition. This brings us back to Mark 7:8, Colossians 2:8, and 2 Thessalonians 2:15. Mark 7:8 warns us that tradition can become a way of evading the commandment of God while appearing pious, Colossians 2:8 that human tradition can take the church captive when it is not according to Christ. Yet 2 Thessalonians 2:15 reminds us that the answer is not to abandon tradition, but to hold fast to what faithfully hands on the apostolic tradition. What Origen, Augustine, and many of the early theologians of the church demonstrate is that the impetus to look to our traditions, from wherever they may derive, is not at its best driven by a desire to complicate the gospel message of salvation. They did not decide one day to come up with a whole grammar of Christian metaphysics because they felt that scripture was lacking, but because they wanted to more clearly express its fundamental truths.
This matters because tradition can be attractive for reasons that are not theological. It can appeal because it is ancient, beautiful, stable, continuous, or, increasingly, counter-cultural. These are not bad things. Indeed, they may be gifts. But they are not, by themselves, sufficient grounds for spiritual authority. A tradition may be aesthetically compelling and yet fail to serve the gospel. It may be old and yet obscure the Word of God. It may be continuous and yet preserve forms of thought or practice that need to be judged by Scripture. In practice, this means Christians need to learn to ask better questions of the traditions they inherit. To engage tradition well is to enter the church’s long work of discernment. It is to ask where the Spirit has led the church to hear and obey the Word of God, and where merely human tradition has claimed authority for itself. It is to receive the past not as a substitute for Scripture, nor as an ornament to Christian identity, but as a witness whose authority depends on its service to Christ. Tradition is at its best when it does not draw attention to itself but teaches the church to hear again the living Word of God.
References
Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 40.60.
Origen, Epistle to Thaumaturgus, 1.
Idem, 2.
Ibid.
For an example specifically of late antique Christian counter-culture development see Oliver B. Langworthy, ‘Theodoret’s Theologian: Assessing the Origin and Significance of Gregory of Nazianzus’ Title.’ The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 70, no. 3 (2019): 466.
Jacopo Sadoleto, “Letter to the Genevans”, in John C. Olin, ed., John Calvin & Jacopo Sadoleto: A Reformation Debate (Baker Book House, 1966), 37.
John Calvin, “Calvin’s reply to Sadoleto”, in Olin, ed., A Reformation Debate, 61.
On John Calvin’s understanding of tradition more widely see this recent excellent article: Richard Muller, ‘Traditio and Paradosis vs. Humanas Traditiones: Calvin on the Problem of Tradition’, MAJT 33 (2022): 5-29.
Originally published on Between Times on July 7th 2026.