Tradition is a buzzword in confessional polemics: Protestants (supposedly) say Scripture only, while Catholics and Orthodox (supposedly) say Scripture-and-Tradition without hierarchical triage between them. Of course, it has never been that simple! Luther and Melanchthon and the Formula of Concord all insist that they were in fact more faithful to the tradition of the church against Roman innovation. Roman Catholics rightly point out all that is not explicit in Scripture and yet adhered to faithfully by the church, including Protestants (e.g. the word “Trinity” or infant baptism). For that matter, Scripture itself is a form of Tradition and full of Tradition—as the opening words of I Corinthians 15 attest, and much biblical scholarship of the past two hundred years has excavated.

So what do we even mean by Tradition? How do we judge it or select from it—because everybody in fact does just that? How do we know what is a faithful development from the original apostolic gospel and what is a treacherous deviation? What “principle of critical judgment” or “clear method of discrimination”? David Bentley Hart and his book Tradition and Apocalypse to the rescue! ... maybe.

We're in our EIGHTH year!
Shouldn't such a tradition be supported?
Demonstrate your little-o orthodoxy by
backing us on Patreon!