As Reformed believers we obviously hold to the primacy of Scripture over tradition. By tradition, I mean any extra-biblical promulgation (say as in the RCC) or biblical interpretation (say, as in RCC or elsewhere), based soley on the the fact that it has been historically adopted/promulgated.

If that is the case, then should we say that tradition plays a supporting role in our doctrine? IOW, that the value in the consensus of the Church, where such consensus exists, gives us confidence that we have interpreted the Bible rightly?

I've often thought as well, that even in the RCC, any particular person must take the promulgated tradition and interpret it, just as they do the Bible..so perhaps simply holding to tradition in the RCC sense doesn't get one any farther, nor moves the meter with respect to the work that must go in to interpretation.

Thoughts?

__________________
Joel Batts
Christ Presbyterian Church (PCA) - Memphis, TN

"Why wasn't God watching? Why wasn't God listening? Why wasn't God there for Georgia Lee?"
- Tom Waits
But you, O God, do see trouble and grief;you consider it to take it in hand. The victim commits himself to you; you are the helper of the fatherless. - Psalm 10:14