Always curious to get other perspectives on different things I read and study. Some key points I came away with…
* Paul's testimony of being zealous for the "traditions of my fathers"
* Traditions never to be an add-on to salvation; obviously the Sola Fide guys like me will diverge with other Christians; if faith is insufficient then Christ is as well. Of course that opens up the question of what is true faith…
* How do we discern what is "according to human precepts amd teachings" that burden the conscience?
* The key is submitting every tradition to the Word of God, which has been debated numerous times here. This shows that there is room for tradition in the Sola Scriptura camp, but it has to be backed up with the written Word.

https://tabletalkmagazine.com/daily-study/2026/06/the-traditions-of-men/

Quote:

---

Few words carry more weight in church history than tradition. Against the claims of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, the Protestant Reformers contended that God's infallible Word is restricted to the Scriptures and does not include sacred tradition. Yet the Reformers were not inventing a new concern; they were recovering one deeply embedded in the Bible. The prophets, the Apostles, and even Jesus Himself warned that tradition could dangerously reshape the gospel, worship, and the Christian life.

The Apostle Paul's testimony is especially helpful in framing the concern. He describes his former life as one marked by astonishing zeal: "so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers" (Gal. 1:14). Paul does not commend this zeal; he presents it as a warning. The traditions that he was once eager to maintain are carefully contrasted with the gospel, because they are the traditions of men, whereas the gospel "is not man's gospel" (v. 11). From this framing we can expose three enduring ways that traditions become dangerous.

First, traditions are dangerous when they are added to salvation. When the Galatians turned toward a distorted gospel, adding circumcision and ceremonial observances, Paul recognized in them the pattern of his former life. Tradition had become an add-on to faith: faith plus tradition. When faith is treated as insufficient for justification, Christ Himself is insufficient. That is not a minor adjustment to the gospel but another gospel, one emptied of good news.

Second, traditions are dangerous when they are added to worship. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees and scribes by saying, "In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men" (Matt. 15:9). He warns that it is possible to worship God in vainnot only by neglect but also by adding to what God has commanded. Worship shaped by human invention and innovation, however reverent it appears, substitutes God's Word with our own traditions. God is not honored by such empty praise.

Third, traditions are dangerous when they are added to godliness. Rules such as "Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch" may have the appearance of wisdom, but Paul says that they are "according to human precepts and teachings" and promote "self-made religion" (Col. 2:2123). These traditions burden consciences, divide believers, and redefine the standard that God has given in His revealed moral will.

All these dangers compromise true freedom. Christ did not ransom His people from sin only to place them under new forms of bondage. We were redeemed, as Peter reminds us, "from the futile ways inherited from [our] forefathers" with the precious blood of Christ (1 Peter 1:1819). That freedom is to be received, joyfully lived in, and carefully guarded. We do so by submitting every tradition to the Word of God. Scripture alone is God's infallible rule for faith and life, and whatever cannot stand beneath its authority must be set aside.

Rev. Kyle Borg is senior pastor of Winchester Reformed Presbyterian Church in Winchester, Kans. He is author of What Is Love?

---

Some interesting questions and points.

You asking "what is true faith" is a very interesting question. To me, true faith would be following the commands and will of Jesus. I understand that to be submitting to the Church I believe he established on earth. Then comes the traditions question. I see it commonly said that the Catholic Church is Pharisaical. This isn't something that worries me. I trust in Jesus's words in Matthew 16:18 saying that the gates of hell will not prevail against his Church.

Ultimately, this whole thing simply comes down to how we interpret different verses, and also how we view tradition. Tradition is not a negative. I am not at all accusing protestants of dismissing traditionI don't think y'all do for the most part. I think the difference is that y'all view tradition as something separate from the word and will of God, while Catholic and Orthodox Christians see this whole deal as one interconnected machine intended to bring about heaven on earth and the salvation of souls.

Thanks for the thoughts!

Yep. 100%

Just curious, does your church have an altar call at the end of services?

You may have to define what you mean just to be sure, but the answer is no.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

You may have to define what you mean just to be sure, but the answer is no.

---

An invitation to accept Christ as your Savior.

Our church is small enough that our pastor and elders know everyone and their testimony and if we have visitors they will visit one on one typically unless they bolt out when service is over.

There is certainly a call to repentance and resting in Christ's work weekly. But there is not a typical Southern Baptist altar call and/or a visitor card check the box yes or no if you accepted Christ.

Feels like there should be an asterisk here and explanation of 2 Thessalonians 2, and why the people hearing and practicing so soon after the resurrection would be wrong about these traditions, and this reformed pastor correct.

Which traditions specifically?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Which traditions specifically?

---

That's kind of the point: the author doesn't know! So he asserts the *******ized Sola scriptura (if it doesn't say it I don't do it) instead of looking to early church practice to see which to keep (preserved in apostolic traditions btw).

If I told you we said the Ten Commandments each Sunday and so did the early church, is it the tradition of men or tradition handed down? What makes you or him an authority on such a small thing?

That would just be reciting scripture, which is a Biblical concept as is relates to Sunday Worship.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

That would just be reciting scripture, which is a Biblical concept as is relates to Sunday Worship.

---

'Biblical concept' is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.

Paul didn't need to explain worship on the eight day because they were already doing it. No one had to explain how to sacrifice an animal to the nation of Israel because it was well known how (read the Aeneid or odyssey if curious what it entails). When he says to persevere, it isn't in 'biblical concepts' but that which was handed down (there was no Bible as conceived of today).

So what was handed down? What were they doing? What confidence do you have in being able to discern such things if they're not mere 'biblical concepts' but finite practices?

AGC said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

That would just be reciting scripture, which is a Biblical concept as is relates to Sunday Worship.

---

No one had to explain how to sacrifice an animal to the nation of Israel because it was well known how

---

What do you mean by this? What is the point of having it written down in the Torah?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

AGC said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

That would just be reciting scripture, which is a Biblical concept as is relates to Sunday Worship.

---

No one had to explain how to sacrifice an animal to the nation of Israel because it was well known how

---

What do you mean by this? What is the point of having it written down in the Torah?

---

Good call, forgot my Leviticus! Now for the rest? Tell me about your sacrifices?

I am sure you are familiar with these and the regulative principle, and I also understand it will not move the needle for you.

Leviticus 10:1-2
Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it and laid incense on it and offered unauthorized fire before the Lord, which he had not commanded them. And fire came out from before the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord.

Deuteronomy 12:32
"Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it.

Matthew 15:8-9
"'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'"

John 4:23-24
But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."

1 Timothy 4:13
Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching.

Ephesians 5:19
...addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart...

Acts 2:42
And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.

Honestly I am not opposed to those things documented in the early (1st century) church. I would be happy to learn more about those. What makes zero sense are the ideas that came centuries after Christ.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Our church is small enough that our pastor and elders know everyone and their testimony and if we have visitors they will visit one on one typically unless they bolt out when service is over.

There is certainly a call to repentance and resting in Christ's work weekly. But there is not a typical Southern Baptist altar call and/or a visitor card check the box yes or no if you accepted Christ.

---

I was asking because I think every denomination and theological belief system has traditions of some sort.

Perhaps so, I am open to hearing how anything we may do is not supported in scripture.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I am sure you are familiar with these and the regulative principle, and I also understand it will not move the needle for you.

Leviticus 10:1-2
Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it and laid incense on it and offered unauthorized fire before the Lord, which he had not commanded them. And fire came out from before the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord.

Deuteronomy 12:32
"Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it.

Matthew 15:8-9
"'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'"

John 4:23-24
But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."

1 Timothy 4:13
Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching.

Ephesians 5:19
...addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart...

Acts 2:42
And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.

Honestly I am not opposed to those things documented in the early (1st century) church. I would be happy to learn more about those. What makes zero sense are the ideas that came centuries after Christ.

---

The regulative principle came centuries later but doesn't bother you. Why?

The principle misses the point, though: if you misread the bible, if you treat it as something it's not, then it cannot yield the information you seek. All the scripture you cite takes for granted the order or manner of such things, even though worship was structured, and Paul handed down things outside of what was written.

I am willing to listen. What did Paul pass down that is being neglected?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Perhaps so, I am open to hearing how anything we may do is not supported in scripture.

---

That begs the question of where in scripture does it say that a doctrine or practice must be supported in scripture.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I am willing to listen. What did Paul pass down that is being neglected?

---

The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. Consider the practice of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar? What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. (1 Corinthians 10:16-21)

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. (1 Corinthians 11:23-30)

"Take and eat; this is my body" and "this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins" (Matthew 26:26-28)

Luke 22:19-20 Includes the command "do this in remembrance of me," establishing the perpetual nature of the sacrament. "Remembrance" here is the English translation of Greek "anamnesis" which is not a mere psychological recollection. It means a making-present of a past redemptive act, transforming the Eucharist from memorial into sacramental re-presentation, similar to how Jews remembered the story of Passover.

And each of those passages must be read and understood in the context of the demand that Jesus places on all of us in John 6:25-71:
"I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger" (6:35)
"The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world" (6:51)
"Whoever eats (trg) my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life" (6:54)
"For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink" (6:55)

"The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, 'How can this man give us his flesh to eat?' So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him (cf John 15 and the story of the vine dresser). As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever." (John 6:52-58)

The Greek word trg (to chew or eat) in verse 54 emphasizes literal consumption, not spiritual metaphor. When disciples object that this teaching is difficult (6:60), Christ does not soften it but deepens it, making clear that belief in the real eating of His flesh is essential to eternal life (6:51-58).

Finally, "On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you." When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you." And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." (John 20:19-23). The risen Christ delegates DIVINE AUTHORITY to his apostles, who then continued to delegate according to the DIVINE AUTHORITY and Tradition they were given.

Just to name a few …

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Perhaps so, I am open to hearing how anything we may do is not supported in scripture.

---

Infant or adult baptism? And am I mistaken that Trinity is a pretty large church?

Adult and/or older children if they have made a genuine profession of faith

What is the few, that all seems to be wrapped up in the Eucharist? I would say there is a different view on rightly observing and partaking; not that it is being neglected.

Oreos and milk? Come on now, scripture says bread and wine (fruit of the vine).

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Oreos and milk? Come on now, scripture says bread and wine (fruit of the vine).

---

Thinking about this more, it's worth digging deeper into 1 Corinthians 10: 16-18 to demonstrate just how different what many Protestants call communion is compared to what Paul is describing.

In verses 16-17 Paul makes one of the most explicit Eucharistic statements in all of Scripture. He speaks of the Eucharist, which he illustrates by the cos habberacah the cup of blessing over which thanks were expressed at the conclusion of the Passover. This shows us how the Eucharistic liturgy passed down from the last supper by the apostles who were there is more than a memorial for the sake of recollection, but is an anamnesis, a reliving of the event being recalled. It is also consistent with the fact that the 4th cup of the Passover was skipped at the Last Supper, only to be drank by Jes

Paul draws on the example of Israel to make his argument concrete. Those who ate the sacrificial meals in the Old Testament participated in the altar they entered into real communion with what was being offered. This is not mere symbol or commemoration. Paul uses Israel's own practice as proof that eating a sacred meal creates real spiritual participation in what is being offered.

The word translated as "participation" ( koinonia) Paul draws on the example of Israel to make his argument concrete. Those who ate the sacrificial meals in the Old Testament participated in the altar they entered into real communion with what was being offered. This is not mere symbol or commemoration. Paul uses Israel's own practice as proof that eating a sacred meal creates real spiritual participation in what is being offered.) means fellowship, sharing, communion a real and genuine participation in the thing itself. Paul is
notusing symbolic or metaphorical language. He is saying the cup IS a real participation in the blood of Christ, and the bread IS a real participation in the body of Christ.

All who eat of the one Eucharistic bread are one mystical body since Christ is really present in this Eucharistic bread, all who eat of it are spiritually transformed in Christ and are thus intimately united to Him and to one another.

This could not be true if what we eat were ordinary bread, for in that case it would be converted into our individual substances, instead of us being converted into it. St. Augustine said, personifying this Eucharistic bread: "Nor shalt thou change Me into Thee... but thou shalt be changed into Me." This is the doctrine of the Real Presence long before the Middle Ages, as proclaimed by the Apostle Paul in the first century.

Verse 18: Consider the practice of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?

Paul draws on the example of Israel to make his argument concrete. Those who ate the sacrificial meals in the Old Testament participated in the altar; i.e., they entered into real communion with what was being offered. This is not mere symbol or commemoration. Paul uses Israel's own practice as proof that eating a sacred meal creates real spiritual participation in what is being offered to drive home the point that the Eucharist is a rel participation in the body and blood of Christ, not symbolic remembrance.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Adult and/or older children if they have made a genuine profession of faith

---

Thanks. That is what our church does also. And not to derail, but I totally agree with your church's emphasis on repentance and resting in the Lord. Very well put.

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Oreos and milk? Come on now, scripture says bread and wine (fruit of the vine).

---

Thinking about this more, it's worth digging deeper into 1 Corinthians 10: 16-18 to demonstrate just how different what many Protestants call communion is compared to what Paul is describing.

In verses 16-17 Paul makes one of the most explicit Eucharistic statements in all of Scripture. He speaks of the Eucharist, which he illustrates by the cos habberacah the cup of blessing over which thanks were expressed at the conclusion of the Passover. This shows us how the Eucharistic liturgy passed down from the last supper by the apostles who were there is more than a memorial for the sake of recollection, but is an anamnesis, a reliving of the event being recalled. It is also consistent with the fact that the 4th cup of the Passover was skipped at the Last Supper, only to be drank by Jes

Paul draws on the example of Israel to make his argument concrete. Those who ate the sacrificial meals in the Old Testament participated in the altar they entered into real communion with what was being offered. This is not mere symbol or commemoration. Paul uses Israel's own practice as proof that eating a sacred meal creates real spiritual participation in what is being offered.

The word translated as "participation" ( koinonia) Paul draws on the example of Israel to make his argument concrete. Those who ate the sacrificial meals in the Old Testament participated in the altar they entered into real communion with what was being offered. This is not mere symbol or commemoration. Paul uses Israel's own practice as proof that eating a sacred meal creates real spiritual participation in what is being offered.) means fellowship, sharing, communion a real and genuine participation in the thing itself. Paul is
notusing symbolic or metaphorical language. He is saying the cup IS a real participation in the blood of Christ, and the bread IS a real participation in the body of Christ.

All who eat of the one Eucharistic bread are one mystical body since Christ is really present in this Eucharistic bread, all who eat of it are spiritually transformed in Christ and are thus intimately united to Him and to one another.

This could not be true if what we eat were ordinary bread, for in that case it would be converted into our individual substances, instead of us being converted into it. St. Augustine said, personifying this Eucharistic bread: "Nor shalt thou change Me into Thee... but thou shalt be changed into Me." This is the doctrine of the Real Presence long before the Middle Ages, as proclaimed by the Apostle Paul in the first century.

Verse 18: Consider the practice of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?

Paul draws on the example of Israel to make his argument concrete. Those who ate the sacrificial meals in the Old Testament participated in the altar; i.e., they entered into real communion with what was being offered. This is not mere symbol or commemoration. Paul uses Israel's own practice as proof that eating a sacred meal creates real spiritual participation in what is being offered to drive home the point that the Eucharist is a rel participation in the body and blood of Christ, not symbolic remembrance.

---

Do alcoholics and celiacs participate in the Eucharist?

I don't disagree with much of what you said; just don't see support that the disciples and Jesus ate His actual flesh and drank His actual blood and that you do today as well.

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Oreos and milk? Come on now, scripture says bread and wine (fruit of the vine).

---

Thinking about this more, it's worth digging deeper into 1 Corinthians 10: 16-18 to demonstrate just how different what many Protestants call communion is compared to what Paul is describing.

In verses 16-17 Paul makes one of the most explicit Eucharistic statements in all of Scripture. He speaks of the Eucharist, which he illustrates by the cos habberacah the cup of blessing over which thanks were expressed at the conclusion of the Passover. This shows us how the Eucharistic liturgy passed down from the last supper by the apostles who were there is more than a memorial for the sake of recollection, but is an anamnesis, a reliving of the event being recalled. It is also consistent with the fact that the 4th cup of the Passover was skipped at the Last Supper, only to be drank by Jes

Paul draws on the example of Israel to make his argument concrete. Those who ate the sacrificial meals in the Old Testament participated in the altar they entered into real communion with what was being offered. This is not mere symbol or commemoration. Paul uses Israel's own practice as proof that eating a sacred meal creates real spiritual participation in what is being offered.

The word translated as "participation" ( koinonia) Paul draws on the example of Israel to make his argument concrete. Those who ate the sacrificial meals in the Old Testament participated in the altar they entered into real communion with what was being offered. This is not mere symbol or commemoration. Paul uses Israel's own practice as proof that eating a sacred meal creates real spiritual participation in what is being offered.) means fellowship, sharing, communion a real and genuine participation in the thing itself. Paul is
notusing symbolic or metaphorical language. He is saying the cup IS a real participation in the blood of Christ, and the bread IS a real participation in the body of Christ.

All who eat of the one Eucharistic bread are one mystical body since Christ is really present in this Eucharistic bread, all who eat of it are spiritually transformed in Christ and are thus intimately united to Him and to one another.

This could not be true if what we eat were ordinary bread, for in that case it would be converted into our individual substances, instead of us being converted into it. St. Augustine said, personifying this Eucharistic bread: "Nor shalt thou change Me into Thee... but thou shalt be changed into Me." This is the doctrine of the Real Presence long before the Middle Ages, as proclaimed by the Apostle Paul in the first century.

Verse 18: Consider the practice of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?

Paul draws on the example of Israel to make his argument concrete. Those who ate the sacrificial meals in the Old Testament participated in the altar; i.e., they entered into real communion with what was being offered. This is not mere symbol or commemoration. Paul uses Israel's own practice as proof that eating a sacred meal creates real spiritual participation in what is being offered to drive home the point that the Eucharist is a rel participation in the body and blood of Christ, not symbolic remembrance.

---

Do alcoholics and celiacs participate in the Eucharist?

I don't disagree with much of what you said; just don't see support that the disciples and Jesus ate His actual flesh and drank His actual blood and that you do today as well.

---

Great question. Alcoholics can receive the consecrated host alone and that is perfectly fine. Alternatively someone with Celiac's can receive the precious blood alone if communion is offered in both kinds or they can ask for a low gluten host. Catholics are not required to receive in both kinds.

Having said that, according to Canon Law, the bread used for the sacrament must be made solely from wheat and water. This isn't an arbitrary rule it flows directly from Christ's own institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper, where He used unleavened bread made from wheat. The bread used in the sacrament of Holy Communion must contain wheat for it to truly become Christ's Body.

This is a matter of valid matter one of the essential conditions for a sacrament to be real. Sacraments require proper matter in order to be valid. You cannot baptize someone by pouring glue over them; you must use water. Using grape jelly instead of oil is not a valid administration of the last rites. In the same way, bread used for the Eucharist must truly be bread.