How Can We Follow Scripture Without Creating Another Human Tradition?

SECTION 3 · THE RESTORATION

Read first. Conclude later. Then be willing to examine the conclusion again.

We began this series by asking how the leadership described in the New Testament developed into the church structures we see in history.

We followed bishops, councils, popes, reformers, and Christians who wanted to restore New Testament teaching and practice. We saw people challenge inherited traditions—and sometimes develop new traditions of their own.

Now the question comes home to us.

How can we follow Scripture without turning our own understanding of Scripture into another human tradition?

We cannot avoid interpreting what we read. We must decide what words mean, how passages fit together, and how the apostles’ instructions apply to us.

But we can distinguish the words of Scripture from the conclusions we draw from them. We can explain our reasoning. We can listen to objections. And we can correct a conclusion when the text requires it.

This final study in our Reformation series is not a test for other churches alone.

It is a test for us.

BEFORE WE OPEN THE BIBLE, HOW SHOULD WE REGARD THE PERSON ACROSS THE TABLE?

Read 1 Corinthians 13:1–7.

Paul says that a person may speak impressively, possess great knowledge, and even make extraordinary sacrifices, yet gain nothing if love is absent.

He describes love as patient and kind. It is not arrogant. It does not insist on its own way.

That is agapē love.

Now think about a Bible study where Christians from different backgrounds gather around the same table.

One person has studied Scripture for sixty years. Another is just beginning. One has been taught that a particular practice is essential. Another has been taught that the same practice is wrong.

Each person arrives with convictions.

But if we have already decided that everyone who disagrees with us is ignorant, stubborn, or less faithful to Christ, what kind of study will we have?

We may take turns speaking without ever listening.

We may quote Scripture without considering the passages someone else brings to our attention.

We may defend the position we arrived with rather than examine whether the text supports it.

Agapē love requires more than allowing another person to speak. It requires us to care enough about that person to listen.

COULD THE PERSON WHO DISAGREES WITH ME BE CLOSER TO CHRIST THAN I AM?

Read Philippians 2:3–5.

Paul tells Christians to act without selfish ambition or conceit and, in humility, to esteem others above themselves.

He then directs their attention to the mind of Christ.

What would happen if we brought that attitude to a Bible study?

Instead of assuming that we are the most knowledgeable person in the room, we could recognize that another Christian may understand something we have overlooked.

Instead of assuming that someone from a different denomination cannot belong to Christ, we could remember:

“The Lord knoweth them that are his.” — 2 Timothy 2:19, KJV

We do not have to agree with everything another person believes in order to treat that person with love and respect.

We do not have to pretend that every interpretation is correct.

But neither should we assume that our understanding is complete or that another person’s relationship with Christ is necessarily inferior to ours.

The person across the table may have something to teach me.

I need to be willing to hear it.

AM I LISTENING TO UNDERSTAND, OR ONLY WAITING FOR MY TURN TO SPEAK?

Read James 1:19–20.

James tells believers:

“let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath.” — James 1:19, KJV

That is a good starting point for any discussion of Scripture.

When another person explains a belief, can I describe that belief accurately before I answer it?

Have I asked why the person understands the passage that way?

Have I read the verses being offered, including their surrounding context?

Or have I stopped listening because I already know which argument I intend to make?

Listening does not mean agreeing.

It means giving another person’s words enough attention to understand what is actually being said.

If we answer an argument the other person never made, we have not helped either of us understand Scripture.

AM I WILLING TO CHANGE?

Read Acts 18:24–28.

Apollos was a capable teacher who knew the Scriptures. Yet Priscilla and Aquila:

“expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.” — Acts 18:26, KJV

He had knowledge, but he still had something to learn.

That should encourage every one of us.

Changing our understanding after further study does not mean that our earlier desire to follow Christ was insincere.

It means we have learned something.

But we cannot benefit from correction if we enter every discussion determined that our present conclusion must survive.

We should be willing to say:

“I have always understood this passage differently. Let me read it again.”

Or:

“I had not considered that verse in its context.”

Or even:

“I believe I was wrong.”

We should not change merely to avoid disagreement.

We should change when the evidence of Scripture requires it.

And we should be as willing to examine our own teaching as we are to examine someone else’s.

CAN WE RECOGNIZE ONE ANOTHER AS BROTHERS AND SISTERS WHILE WE CONTINUE TO STUDY?

Read Romans 14:1–4.

Paul warns Christians against despising or judging one another over the matters he discusses. He reminds them that the servant stands or falls before his own master.

That does not make every doctrinal disagreement a Romans 14 matter. Paul also corrected serious errors and warned against another gospel.

But the passage does challenge our readiness to assume the place of another person’s Master.

Christ knows those who belong to Him.

I can examine a teaching and explain why I believe it is wrong without claiming to know everything about the standing of the person who holds it.

I can treat someone as a brother or sister while we open Scripture together, listen carefully, and seek a clearer understanding.

That does not require me to abandon what I believe the Bible teaches.

It requires me to remember whose church this is.

Christ is the head.

I am not.

WHAT IS OUR PURPOSE WHEN WE STUDY TOGETHER?

Our purpose is not to win an argument for the church group in which we grew up.

It is not to collect enough verses to make everyone else surrender to our position.

It is to understand the word of God and follow Christ more faithfully.

Read Ephesians 4:15–16.

Paul calls Christians to speak the truth in love and to grow up into Christ, who is the head.

Truth matters.

Love matters.

And growth means that we have not yet reached the end of what we need to learn.

We may finish a discussion without agreeing about every passage.

But we can leave with a better understanding of one another, a clearer question to study, or a willingness to reconsider something we once assumed.

That is not a wasted study.

We do not come to the Bible to prove that our group has always been right.

We come because we want to follow Christ—even when His word requires us to change.

1. DOES THE BIBLE WARN AGAINST ALL TRADITION?

No.

The word tradition can refer to teaching that has been handed down. Whether a tradition is good or bad depends on its source and content.

Read 2 Thessalonians 2:15.

Paul tells believers to hold to the teachings they received from the apostles, whether communicated orally or by letter.

Now read Mark 7:1–13.

Jesus rebukes religious leaders for elevating human tradition in a way that sets aside God’s command.

The problem is not that people have remembered or passed down a teaching.

The problem arises when a human practice or interpretation is given authority that belongs to God’s word.

We must therefore ask where a tradition came from, what it requires, and whether it agrees with the teaching of Christ and His apostles.

A practice is not wrong merely because it has been handed down.

It is not right merely because it is old.

2. WHAT WAS WRONG WITH THE TRADITION JESUS CONDEMNED?

Read Mark 7:6–13 carefully.

Jesus identifies a conflict between God’s command to honor father and mother and a religious practice that allowed someone to avoid providing help to a parent.

The leaders’ tradition did not merely add a harmless custom.

It gave people a way to set aside a responsibility God had already established.

Jesus says:

“Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition.” — Mark 7:13, KJV

Now consider how we apply this passage.

It does not prove that every inherited practice is forbidden.

It requires us to ask whether a practice contradicts God’s instruction, replaces it, or is imposed as though God commanded it.

We must identify the actual conflict rather than use the word tradition as an insult.

3. CAN SOMEONE REJECT AN OLD TRADITION AND CREATE A NEW ONE?

Yes.

Suppose a congregation decides that a familiar practice has no biblical foundation.

Its members remove the practice.

Years later, someone asks why the congregation now follows a different arrangement.

The answer is:

“Because this is how we have always done it.”

The new arrangement may be entirely permissible.

But if the congregation cannot explain its reasoning—or refuses to examine it—the arrangement may have acquired the same unquestioned status as the practice it replaced.

A movement can reject a creed and develop unwritten rules.

It can reject a denominational name and make its own name a test of loyalty.

It can reject centralized authority and treat an influential preacher’s opinions as though they were beyond question.

Rejecting someone else’s tradition does not automatically free us from our own.

4. DOES “WE FOLLOW THE BIBLE” SETTLE A DISAGREEMENT?

No.

Two Christians may both believe that Scripture is authoritative and still reach different conclusions about a passage.

One may believe a practice is commanded.

Another may believe it is permitted but not required.

A third may believe it is forbidden.

Saying “We follow the Bible” tells us what authority a person claims to recognize.

It does not show us how that person reached a particular conclusion.

Read Acts 17:10–12.

The Bereans examined the Scriptures to determine whether the message they heard was true.

They did not accept a teaching merely because the speaker was respected.

But they did not reject it merely because it was unfamiliar.

They examined the evidence.

We should be willing to do the same—even when the teaching being examined is our own.

5. WHAT IS THE FIRST QUESTION WE SHOULD ASK WHEN READING A PASSAGE?

What was the writer communicating to the people who first received these words?

Before asking how a passage applies to us, identify its author, audience, setting, and purpose.

Read 1 Corinthians 11:17–34.

Paul addresses problems in the Corinthians’ gatherings. Some were eating while others went hungry, and the congregation’s conduct contradicted the meaning of the Lord’s Supper.

If we begin by looking for a verse to defend our preferred communion procedure, we may overlook the problem Paul was correcting.

Read the whole section.

What were the Corinthians doing?

What did Paul tell them to change?

What reasons did he give?

Only then should we ask how his instruction applies to our assemblies.

The first readers are not the only people who can learn from Scripture.

But we should not skip them on our way to our own conclusions.

6. WHY DOES THE KIND OF WRITING MATTER?

The Bible contains history, law, poetry, prophecy, parables, letters, and visions.

These forms of writing communicate in different ways.

A command in an apostolic letter is not the same kind of statement as an image in a prophetic vision.

A historical account may describe something that happened without commanding everyone to repeat every detail.

Read Revelation 5:6.

John describes a Lamb standing as though slain, with seven horns and seven eyes.

We recognize that the imagery communicates truths about Christ.

We do not conclude that Jesus must physically appear as a seven-eyed lamb.

Now read Ephesians 4:28.

Paul tells the person who has been stealing to stop, work honestly, and share with those in need.

That is direct moral instruction.

If we ignore the kind of writing we are reading, we may turn an image into a literal requirement or treat a clear command as though it were merely an interesting story.

7. HOW DO WE DISTINGUISH A COMMAND FROM A DESCRIPTION?

Read Acts 16:13.

Paul and his companions went outside the city to a riverside, where they expected to find a place of prayer.

The passage tells us where they went and what happened.

It does not command every congregation to worship beside a river.

Now read Matthew 28:18–20.

Jesus instructs His apostles to make disciples, baptize them, and teach them to observe His commands.

That is an instruction, not merely a description of something the apostles happened to do.

But the distinction is not always settled by identifying whether a sentence uses an imperative verb.

A historical account may show how an apostolic instruction was carried out. Several passages may together establish a practice.

We must examine what the writer intended to teach, not merely count the commands and descriptions on a page.

8. DOES AN APOSTOLIC EXAMPLE AUTOMATICALLY BECOME A RULE?

No.

We must ask what the example establishes.

Read Acts 20:7–12.

The believers gathered on the first day of the week to break bread. Paul spoke at length, and the gathering continued into the night.

Does the passage tell us something about the church’s practice of gathering and breaking bread?

Yes.

Does it require every congregation to meet upstairs, use lamps, hear a sermon until midnight, or have a visiting apostle present?

No such requirement is stated.

Now read Acts 14:23 alongside Titus 1:5–9.

The appointment of elders is described in Acts and directly addressed in Paul’s instructions to Titus. Together, these passages provide evidence for the role of elders in congregations.

An example may be significant.

But we must establish which part of the account carries the intended teaching.

We should not make every circumstance of an inspired account into a universal command.

9. CAN WE DRAW CONCLUSIONS THAT SCRIPTURE DOES NOT STATE WORD FOR WORD?

Yes.

Reading requires reasoning.

Read Matthew 22:23–33.

Jesus answers a question about the resurrection by reasoning from God’s words to Moses.

His hearers were expected to recognize what followed from the passage.

But a conclusion we draw from Scripture is not automatically a necessary conclusion.

Suppose a passage describes Christians meeting in a home.

We may conclude that a home can be a place for Christian worship.

We cannot conclude from that fact alone that Christians are forbidden to meet in a rented room.

The second conclusion requires additional evidence.

When we say, “This passage necessarily means...,” we should be able to show why another reading is excluded by the text.

If we cannot, we should not present our inference as though it were an explicit command.

10. WHAT SHOULD WE DO WHEN SCRIPTURE DOES NOT MENTION A PRACTICE?

First, identify the instruction that may apply.

Then ask what the proposed practice actually does.

Does it carry out the instruction?

Does it change the instruction?

Does it introduce a separate activity?

Does it give someone authority Scripture has not given?

Consider a congregation deciding whether to use a microphone.

The New Testament does not mention microphones.

But that fact alone does not tell us whether using one is right or wrong. We must ask whether it helps people hear the teaching and singing or changes what the congregation has been instructed to do.

Now consider a person claiming the right to overrule every congregation because he has been appointed head of a religious organization.

That is not simply another way to make a speaker audible.

It is a claim of governing authority, and that claim requires biblical examination.

Silence is not a shortcut that eliminates the need to identify what a practice actually does.

11. CAN A HELPFUL PRACTICE BECOME AN UNAUTHORIZED REQUIREMENT?

Yes.

A congregation may decide that a particular meeting schedule helps its members study and worship together.

But if it teaches that every congregation must use that exact schedule to please God, it has made a larger claim.

Where does Scripture establish the requirement?

A congregation may find a particular teaching method effective.

But effectiveness does not give it authority to condemn every other method.

Read Colossians 2:20–23.

Paul warns against humanly imposed religious regulations that have an appearance of wisdom.

We should not apply his words indiscriminately to every practical arrangement. His concern is with rules being imposed as religious obligations.

That is precisely the distinction we need.

Christians may make practical decisions.

They should not turn those decisions into divine law without biblical authority.

12. HOW CAN WE TELL WHETHER WE ARE READING OUR OWN IDEAS INTO A PASSAGE?

Ask what conclusion we expected to find before opening the Bible.

Then ask whether we have allowed the passage to challenge that expectation.

Suppose we begin with a complete system of church government and search for verses to support it.

We may notice every reference that appears to fit our system while explaining away passages that do not.

Or suppose we begin with a settled belief about the end times and arrange verses from different books into a timeline before examining what each writer was communicating.

The problem is not that we have a conclusion.

The problem is that the conclusion controls the reading rather than being tested by it.

A useful practice is to write down three things separately:

WHAT THE PASSAGE SAYS.

WHAT WE THINK IT MEANS.

WHAT WE CONCLUDE WE SHOULD DO.

That separation makes our reasoning easier to examine.

13. SHOULD WE STUDY PASSAGES THAT APPEAR TO DISAGREE WITH OUR CONCLUSION?

Yes.

If our interpretation is correct, we should not need to hide the passages that make us uncomfortable.

Suppose we believe that salvation is described fully by one verse.

We should still read the passages about faith, repentance, baptism, grace, obedience, and perseverance.

We should ask how the writers’ statements fit together without forcing one passage to say something it does not say.

Read Acts 20:27.

Paul says:

“For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.” — Acts 20:27, KJV

We should not build a doctrine by collecting only the statements that sound favorable to our position.

Nor should we combine passages so carelessly that we ignore their different audiences and purposes.

A conclusion should account for the relevant evidence, including the passages that initially seem difficult.

14. CAN WE USE THE OLD TESTAMENT TO EXPLAIN THE NEW TESTAMENT?

Certainly.

The apostles repeatedly use the Old Testament to explain Christ and His work.

Read Acts 2:25–36.

Peter uses the Psalms to explain Jesus’ resurrection and exaltation.

Read Hebrews 8–10.

The writer explains the significance of Christ’s priesthood and sacrifice in relation to the old covenant.

But the apostles also explain what has changed through Christ.

We cannot assume that every practice commanded under Moses remains a requirement for the church.

Nor can we assume that the Old Testament has nothing to teach Christians.

The question is how the New Testament uses the earlier Scriptures and what Christ has fulfilled or changed.

That requires more careful reading than selecting an Old Testament practice we like and treating it as a command for Christians today.

15. WHAT SHOULD WE DO WHEN A WORD HAS SEVERAL POSSIBLE MEANINGS?

Read the sentence and its context.

A Greek or Hebrew word may have a range of meanings. A dictionary can help us see that range, but it cannot choose the correct meaning without regard to the passage.

Consider the word church.

In Acts 19, the Greek word commonly translated church is used for a public assembly in Ephesus.

In Ephesians 1:22–23, it refers to Christ’s body.

We would misunderstand both passages if we insisted that the word must carry every possible meaning every time it appears.

The same caution applies when discussing words translated baptize, overseer, elder, or make melody.

A word study can help us ask better questions.

It cannot replace reading the writer’s actual sentence.

16. CAN A TRANSLATION SETTLE EVERY QUESTION?

No single English translation can display every feature of the original languages.

Translators must make decisions about wording, grammar, and how to express an idea clearly.

Comparing reliable translations may help us notice a question worth studying.

But a difference in wording does not automatically mean one translation is dishonest.

Nor does finding a Greek word in a dictionary make someone an expert in the language.

When a disputed conclusion depends on a particular word or grammatical construction, we should examine the relevant evidence and recognize the limits of our knowledge.

Read 2 Timothy 2:15.

Paul tells Timothy:

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” — 2 Timothy 2:15, KJV

That responsibility calls for care, not a display of technical language intended to silence questions.

The purpose of studying the original wording is to understand the text—not to make an argument sound more impressive.

17. HOW MUCH AUTHORITY SHOULD WE GIVE CHURCH HISTORY?

History can tell us how Christians in earlier centuries understood a passage, what practices they followed, and how their institutions developed.

That information may reveal an assumption we did not realize we had inherited.

But history cannot turn a later practice into an apostolic command.

Nor does the fact that a practice is recent automatically make it wrong.

Consider our earlier studies.

We examined the development of regional bishops, missionary societies, and instrumental music.

In each case, the historical question was:

WHAT HAPPENED, AND WHY?

The biblical question was:

DOES THE AUTHORITY CLAIMED FOR THIS PRACTICE FOLLOW FROM SCRIPTURE?

We should learn from earlier Christians without treating them as incapable of error.

That includes the reformers who challenged earlier traditions.

It also includes the leaders of movements that called for restoration.

18. WHAT ABOUT A RESPECTED PREACHER WHO TAUGHT US THE BIBLE?

We can be grateful for faithful teachers without treating their conclusions as unquestionable.

Read Acts 18:24–28.

Apollos was eloquent and knowledgeable in the Scriptures.

Yet Priscilla and Aquila:

“expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.” — Acts 18:26, KJV

A capable teacher still had something to learn.

Read 1 Corinthians 3:4–9.

Paul challenges the Corinthians’ tendency to identify themselves with particular teachers. He describes himself and Apollos as servants through whom the Corinthians believed.

A teacher may help us understand a passage.

But the teacher did not write the passage, and gratitude does not require us to defend every conclusion that teacher reached.

If someone shows us from Scripture that our teacher was mistaken, we should examine the evidence.

The same rule applies when we are the teacher.

19. DOES AGE OR EXPERIENCE MAKE OUR INTERPRETATION CERTAIN?

No.

Years of study can bring knowledge, perspective, and familiarity with Scripture.

They can also make a familiar interpretation feel so natural that we stop noticing the assumptions behind it.

A younger Christian may misunderstand a passage.

An older Christian may misunderstand it too.

Read 1 Timothy 4:12–16.

Paul tells Timothy not to let others despise his youth, but to attend carefully to his conduct, teaching, and progress.

Read 1 Peter 5:1–3.

Peter calls elders to serve as examples rather than domineer over those entrusted to them.

Neither youth nor age is a substitute for careful study.

The appropriate question is not:

“How long have you taught this?”

It is:

“CAN YOU SHOW ME HOW THIS CONCLUSION FOLLOWS FROM THE TEXT?”

20. HOW SHOULD A TEACHER RESPOND TO A SERIOUS QUESTION?

By listening to the question and examining the passage.

A teacher may have an answer immediately.

Or the question may expose something that needs further study.

It is acceptable to say:

“I need to examine that more carefully.”

Read 2 Timothy 2:24–26.

Paul says:

“the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient.” — 2 Timothy 2:24, KJV

That instruction does not require a teacher to agree with every objection.

It does require a manner of teaching that leaves room for explanation and correction.

A question should not be treated as rebellion merely because it challenges an established interpretation.

And a teacher should not claim that disagreement with him is necessarily disagreement with God.

The authority belongs to the word being taught, not to the person explaining it.

21. DOES HUMILITY MEAN WE CAN NEVER REACH A FIRM CONCLUSION?

No.

Paul taught with conviction.

He also called Christians to examine what they heard.

Read Galatians 1:6–9.

Paul firmly rejects another gospel.

Read 1 Thessalonians 5:19–22.

Paul says:

“Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” — 1 Thessalonians 5:21, KJV

Testing and holding fast belong together.

We do not need to pretend that every interpretation is equally well supported.

But we should distinguish our level of confidence from the authority of Scripture itself.

Where a passage clearly instructs Christians to do something, we should say so.

Where a conclusion depends on several steps of reasoning, we should explain those steps.

Where faithful readers disagree about an inference, we should identify the disagreement accurately rather than disguise it as an explicit statement of the text.

Humility does not require indecision.

It requires honesty about how we reached our decision.

22. HOW CAN WE DISTINGUISH SCRIPTURE FROM OUR INTERPRETATION OF IT?

Try stating them separately.

Scripture says that Paul summoned the elders of the church in Ephesus and called them overseers who were to shepherd the flock.

Read Acts 20:17, 28.

That is what the passage says.

We may conclude that elder, overseer, and shepherd describe related responsibilities within the leadership of that congregation.

That is an interpretation supported by the wording.

We may then conclude that a particular later church office goes beyond the arrangement described in Acts 20.

That is a further judgment requiring us to examine other passages and the actual authority claimed by that office.

The conclusion may be well supported.

But it should not be presented as though every step appeared word for word in Acts 20.

The more carefully we distinguish the text from our reasoning, the easier it becomes to test whether our reasoning is sound.

23. WHAT SHOULD WE DO WHEN WE DISCOVER THAT WE WERE WRONG?

Correct the conclusion.

That may require changing a lesson, a sermon, a church practice, or a statement we have repeated for many years.

It may also require telling people whom we previously taught that we have changed our understanding.

Read Acts 18:24–28 again.

Apollos received further instruction and continued teaching.

The account does not present correction as the end of his usefulness.

Read Proverbs 12:1.

The proverb connects love of instruction with willingness to receive correction.

We should not use that proverb as an insult against someone who disagrees with us.

We should apply its challenge to ourselves.

A desire to preserve our reputation is a poor reason to defend an interpretation we no longer believe the text supports.

24. WHAT IF OUR CONGREGATION DISAGREES WITH OUR NEW CONCLUSION?

First, make sure we have understood both the passage and the congregation’s actual position.

Then explain our reasoning accurately and respectfully.

Read Ephesians 4:1–3 and 15.

Paul calls Christians to humility, patience, and speaking the truth in love.

Read Romans 14:1–23.

Paul also warns against pressuring someone to act against conscience in the matters he discusses.

But we must not assume that every disagreement is a Romans 14 matter.

Some teachings concern the gospel itself or conduct the apostles explicitly forbid.

The appropriate response depends on the issue.

A Christian may need to keep studying, seek discussion, decline to participate in a particular practice, or ask the congregation to reconsider its teaching.

Whatever the situation, we should avoid misrepresenting others merely to make our own position easier to defend.

25. CAN A CONGREGATION HAVE SHARED CONVICTIONS WITHOUT TURNING THEM INTO A CREED?

A congregation must teach what it believes Scripture requires.

It must also make decisions about its shared worship, teaching, and work.

The danger is not the existence of convictions.

The danger is treating a human statement of those convictions as though it cannot be corrected by Scripture.

A written statement can help people understand what a congregation teaches.

An unwritten expectation can also shape what members are permitted to say or question.

Neither form guarantees faithfulness.

The important question is whether the congregation can explain its teaching from Scripture and whether its members are willing to reexamine that explanation.

“We have no creed but the Bible” should be an invitation to open the Bible together.

It should not become a way to end the discussion.

26. HOW CAN WE PUT THIS METHOD INTO PRACTICE?

When we encounter a disputed teaching, we can follow a simple pattern.

Read first. Conclude later.

1. Read the whole passage. Identify the writer, audience, setting, and purpose.

2. State what the text says. Keep its actual words separate from your explanation.

3. Examine related passages. Do not collect only those that appear to support your position.

4. Explain your reasoning. Show how you move from the passage to your conclusion.

5. Test the conclusion. Consider serious objections and passages that appear to challenge it.

6. Apply what you have learned. Be willing to change a belief or practice when the text requires it.

This method does not guarantee that we will never make a mistake.

It does make our reasoning visible so that mistakes can be identified and corrected.

It also gives Christians from different backgrounds a way to study together without requiring either person to surrender the right to ask questions.

27. DOES THIS METHOD APPLY TO OUR OWN SERIES?

Absolutely.

We have examined the claims of bishops, popes, councils, reformers, and restoration movements.

We have discussed baptism, the Lord’s Supper, church leadership, missionary societies, instrumental music, and the unity of Christ’s body.

Each study has included historical descriptions and conclusions drawn from Scripture.

Those conclusions must be examined just as carefully as the conclusions of the people whose history we have studied.

If we have misunderstood a passage, the passage must correct us.

If we have described another tradition inaccurately, the description must be corrected.

If an argument depends on an assumption the text does not establish, that assumption must be identified.

Our purpose is not to build a new tradition around this series.

It is to help readers examine Scripture for themselves.

28. WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM THE HISTORY OF THE CHURCH?

Christians have repeatedly tried to preserve truth, correct error, organize their work, and maintain unity.

They have also disagreed about what faithfulness requires.

Some structures began as practical arrangements and later acquired greater authority.

Some reforms corrected inherited practices while introducing new assumptions.

Some movements rejected denominational boundaries and later developed boundaries of their own.

That history should neither surprise us nor make us abandon the search for truth.

It should make us careful.

The New Testament does not ask us to place our confidence in the age of an institution, the reputation of a reformer, or the name of a movement.

It calls us to follow Christ and attend to the teaching He gave through His apostles.

29. WHERE SHOULD THIS STUDY LEAVE US?

Return to John 17:17–23.

Jesus prays:

“Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.” — John 17:17, KJV

Then He prays for those who will believe through the apostles’ word:

“That they all may be one.” — John 17:21, KJV

Truth and unity belong together in His prayer.

We should not sacrifice truth merely to avoid disagreement.

We should not use our concern for truth as an excuse to treat fellow students of Scripture with contempt.

We should be willing to teach, listen, question, correct, and be corrected.

And we should remember that no modern congregation, religious movement, or Bible-study website possesses the authority that belongs to Christ.

Whatever church background we come from, none of us is exempt.

READ FIRST. CONCLUDE LATER.

Then keep reading.

Before we ask someone else to reconsider a belief, let us ask whether we are willing to reconsider our own.

Before we judge the person across the table, let us remember that Christ knows that person better than we do.

Before we defend the church group we grew up in, let us remember that the church belongs to Christ.

We may disagree.

We may need to correct one another.

But we must never allow our disagreement to make us disagreeable or to become an excuse for contempt.

Love one another.

Open the Bible together.

Read first.

Conclude later.

And be willing to change.

WHERE DOES OUR SERIES GO NEXT?

This completes the planned RF studies.

But before beginning another historical section, we need to look back over what we have just done.

Our RF sequence began with the Reformation, but it eventually carried us far beyond Luther and the sixteenth century. We followed later Protestant movements, Pentecostalism, the Charismatic movement, and the Restoration Movement.

Those later developments deserve their own section headings when we organize the completed series.

We do not need to rewrite the studies.

We need to organize them so that a reader can see clearly where one historical period ends and another begins.

Then we can continue the story.

TEXT B4 TRADITION

Read First. Conclude Later.

RETURN TO MAIN SERIES: ONE CHURCH, SO MANY DIVISIONS—WHAT HAPPENED?

FINAL PAGE IN SERIES: WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BELONG TO CHRIST’S CHURCH TODAY