Skip to content
The Historic Faith
Sign in

Jumpstarter 2 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
Question 2
The chapter distinguishes between apostolic tradition, which confirms and clarifies Scripture, and human tradition, which invalidates Scripture. How can a church honestly examine whether its inherited practices help people obey Scripture or give them reasons to avoid it?
Another way to ask: The chapter says apostolic tradition supports Scripture, but human tradition can weaken or cancel Scripture. How can a church test whether its practices help people obey the Bible or help them avoid it?

Direct Answer

A church can examine whether its traditions confirm Scripture or undermine it by asking whether those practices encourage obedience to biblical teaching or function as excuses for avoiding it. Bercot’s test is whether a tradition clarifies and applies Scripture, or "invalidates the word of God."

Support from Transcript

- He contrasts "good tradition" and "bad tradition," saying there is "apostolic tradition" and "human tradition." - He defines the difference: "Apostolic tradition confirms what is written in Scripture; human tradition makes Scripture invalid." - He uses the head covering issue as an example, asking whether the tradition received on that subject "prompt[s] you to obey what Scripture teaches" or "invalidate[s] the word of God." - He insists, "Apostolic tradition, what was handed down orally by the apostles, never invalidates Scripture." - He warns that human traditions can create "ready-made reasons for ignoring Scripture."

Discussion Follow-ups

The transcript does not provide a formal evaluation process, but it clearly suggests churches should compare inherited practices with Scripture and with early apostolic testimony.