Can the Reformed Approach Lead Away from Biblical Christianity?

[rako]

Can the "Reformed" Approach (eg. Calvinism, Evangelicalism, Presbyterianism, but not Lutheranism, Catholicism, or Orthodoxy) lead away from Biblical Christianity?

The Reformed movement was a "revolution" in an approach to Christianity and to the Bible. It used a naturalistic, materialistic version of "Reason" as a major tool to understand the Bible and downgraded the authority of Christian Tradition for doing so. Three specific cases where Calvinism used to Reason to go against the combined plain meaning of the Bible and Tradition were:

• the Reformed view that Christ is not specifically present in the Eucharistic food,
• Calvin's view that the spiritual rock following the Israelites was itself neither a rock nor actually Christ, but a stream of water
• Reformed principles against holy objects being used for miracleworking

This thread is not arguing that Calvinism openly teaches against the Nicene Creed or that Calvinists should not be considered "Christian". Nor am I arguing for Roman Catholicism or the RC "magisterial infallibility", as I am Eastern Orthodox. Rather, a review of the issues above raises the question of whether the trajectory of Calvin's approach ultimately leads away from the fundamentals of Biblical Christianity as we know it.

Rather than discuss all these issues at once, in order to better address and understand them in greater detail, I will write them out one at a time. For your part, you are invited to write in anytime with your own observations.

The issues that compose it are:

I. What was the broader social and philosophical background and context for Calvinism's appearance and its trajectory?
Question I is here: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4628593&postcount=4

II.(A) What was the Reformed attitude to Scripture and Tradition, and did its downgrading of Tradition in effect cut the anchor loose from its theology?
Question II(A) is here: http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...Christianity&p=4634991&viewfull=1#post4634991

II.(B) Instead of considering Tradition a crucial tool, did Calvin rely on modern Reason with a materialistic aspect?

III.(A) Did early Christian traditions teach that the Eucharist bread lacked Christ's body's presence? If not, did Calvin rely on materialistic reasoning to deny that presence?

III.(B) Could the Reformed view on the Eucharistic bread directly lead away from the Biblical Christian community and communion?

IV. Did Calvin use materialistic Reason to decide that the "spiritual rock" following the Israelites in 1 Corinthians 10 was not actually Christ or even a rock but a stream of water? Does this contradict Paul's view in the Bible?

V.(A) Did early Christian writings teach that holy peoples' bones, clothes, and shadow could not heal people? What is the Reformed basis for teaching that this is "superstition", other than materialistic Reason?

VI.(B) Could Reformed principles against relics' involvement in miracles lead away from the Bible's teachings on them?

VII. Could materialistic Reformed reasoning, illustrated by the three cases above, lead away from the fundamentals of Christianity as we understand it, such as Christ's supernatural Resurrection and Ascension?

VIII. Has this Reformed approach in fact led major scholars and Christian groups away from the fundamentals of Christianity?

I recommend discussing these one at a time. Currently I am on the last Question above that has a link below it.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Can the "Reformed" Approach (eg. Calvinism, Evangelicalism, Presbyterianism, but not Lutheranism, Catholicism, or Orthodoxy) lead away from Biblical Christianity?

The Reformed movement was a "revolution" in an approach to Christianity and to the Bible. It used a naturalistic, materialistic version of "Reason" as a major tool to understand the Bible and downgraded the authority of Christian Tradition for doing so. Three specific cases where Calvinism used to Reason to go against the combined plain meaning of the Bible and Tradition were:

• the Reformed that Christ is not specifically present in the Eucharistic food,
• Calvin's view that the spiritual rock following the Israelites was itself neither a rock nor actually Christ, but a stream of water
• Reformed principles against holy objects being used for miracleworking

This thread is not arguing that Calvinism openly teaches against the Nicene Creed or that Calvinists should not be considered "Christian". Rather, a review of these issues raises the question of whether the trajectory of Calvin's approach ultimately leads away from the fundamentals of Biblical Christianity as we know it.

Rather than discuss all these issues at once, in order to better address and understand them in greater detail, I will write them out one at a time. For your part, you are invited to write in anytime with your own observations.

The issues that compose it are:

Many things can lead away from Biblical Christianity.
It would help to define what you mean by Biblical Christianity.

I. What was the broader social and philosophical background and context for Calvinism's appearance and its trajectory?

The Reformation happened because the de facto Christian organizations had demonstrated that they had already left Biblical Christianity.

II.(A) What was the Reformed attitude to Scripture and Tradition, and did its downgrading of Tradition in effect cut the anchor loose from its theology?

Since it was the Tradition of the de facto Christian organizations that led them away from Biblical Christianity, the Reformed attitude had the effect of turning them towards that lost Biblical Christianity.

II.(B) Instead of considering Tradition a crucial tool, did Calvin rely on modern Reason with a materialistic aspect?

Calvin relied too much on the writings of the heretic Augustine.

III.(A) Did early Christian traditions teach that the Eucharist bread lacked Christ's body's presence? If not, did Calvin rely on materialistic reasoning to deny that presence?

Early Christian traditions taught that the eating of the bread and the drinking of the wine were done in remembrance of Jesus. 1 Corinthians 11:24-25.

III.(B) Could the Reformed view on the Eucharistic bread directly lead away from the Biblical Christian community and communion?

No, it is the Catholic view on the bread that leads to idolatry and away from Biblical Christianity.

IV. Did Calvin use materialistic Reason to decide that the "spiritual rock" following the Israelites in 1 Corinthians 10 was not actually Christ or even a rock but a stream of water? Does this contradict Paul's view in the Bible?

Never heard of this before.

V.(A) Did early Christian writings teach that holy peoples' bones, clothes, and shadow could not heal people? What is the Reformed basis for teaching that this is "superstition", other than materialistic Reason?

No, the Bible shows that these things can heal others, but taking this and making idols of the "relics" of the "saints" is idolatry and is not Biblical Christianity.

VI.(B) Could Reformed principles against relics' involvement in miracles lead away from the Bible's teachings on them?

No, the rejection of idolatry is a key doctrine in Biblical Christianity.

VII. Could materialistic Reformed reasoning, illustrated by the three cases above, lead away from the fundamentals of Christianity as we understand it, such as Christ's supernatural Resurrection and Ascension?

No.

VIII. Has this Reformed approach in fact led major scholars and Christian groups away from the fundamentals of Christianity?

No.

One of the things that has lead the Reformed away from Biblical Christianity are holding on to the teachings of the heretic Augustine, which the Catholic church is also guilty of doing.

 

[rako]

Many things can lead away from Biblical Christianity.
It would help to define what you mean by Biblical Christianity.

Thanks for your replies, genuineoriginal!

You asked a good question about what is meant by Biblical Christianity.

Perhaps this could mean strictly the teachings of the New Testament directly given in its verses. So if Paul writes and intends to say that Christ is a moving "spiritual rock" (1 Cor 10:4), and not a "stream of water", then strictly speaking it would contradict part of Biblical Christianity to teach the opposite while calling the apostolic teaching "foolish".

But more fundamentally I mean the major "basics" of Christianity as we understand it, as expressed in the Nicene Creed and Bible. If people taught that the Old Testament did not predict the Messiah's resurrection, or that Jesus' body stayed physically dead and he just rose "spiritually", that would contradict our understanding of Christianity's basics. It might not be a fundamental issue of Biblical Christianity whether one thinks God was present following the Israelites or whether one hugs or kisses a cross while praying.

So which do you think we should mean by this in our thread question, Genuine?

 

[rako]

I. The broader social, scientific and philosophical context in which Calvin wrote was the Age of Discovery and the early modern period. He also wrote in the vein of Renaissance Humanism, which was not quite the same as modern Humanism.

In the Age of Discovery, scientists and explorers went against the social consensus to make new discoveries about reality. While scholars of the time commonly believed (correctly) that the world was too large to reasonably sail directly to China going west from Europe, Columbus disregarded this near-consensus and set across the ocean, where he discovered the Americas.

Scientists and scholars were proposing new ideas that went against concepts commonly held by Christians of their time and the Church in particular. Thus Galileo and Copernicus proposed that the sun was the center of the solar system and taught a heliocentric model, even though contemporary Christians (including Calvin) taught otherwise. The Catholic church rejected this as anathema and Galileo was required to admit his falsehood by the Inquisition, which did not affect whether the earth goes around the sun.

What is interesting, ironic, and relevant is that while the Catholic Church might emphasize the Bible (eg. Psalm 93:1, Ecclesiastic 1:5) and its traditions to debunk heliocentrism, Calvin used naturalistic Reason to do so, calling Galileo and Copernicus

those dreamers who have a spirit of bitterness and contradiction, who reprove everything and prevent the order of nature. We will see some who are so deranged, not only in religion but who in all things reveal their monstrous nature, that they will say that the sun does not move, and that it is the earth which shifts and turns. When we see such minds we must indeed confess that the devil posses them, and that God sets them before us as mirrors, in order to keep us in his fear. So it is with all who argue out of pure malice, and who happily make a show of their imprudence. When they are told: “That is hot,” they will reply: “No, it is plainly cold.” When they are shown an object that is black, they will say that it is white, or vice versa. Just like the man who said that snow is black; for although it is perceived and known by all to be white, yet he clearly wished to contradict the fact. And so it is that they are madmen who would try to change the natural order, and even to dazzle eyes and benumb their senses.
http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/j...rnicus-and-heliocentrism#sthash.TosdEfJM.dpuf

That is, Calvin's argument was not so much that Galileo violated religion by claiming that the earth went around the sun, but that he violated "the natural order of things" as perceived directly by the external senses.

Galileo's Heliocentric Model

The contradiction between Calvin's rigid view of the natural order will come up later when he used it to deny that Christ's body could be in two places at once - in heaven and directly in the Eucharist bread. Centuries later, Einstein would propose that a body could be in two places at once, reminiscient of Calvin's naturalistic dispute with Galileo:

Einstein was right, you can be in two places at once
www.independent.co.uk › News › Science, The Independent, Dec 16, 2010​

In any case, the larger point is that late renaissance scholars were beginning to go directly against what Christians commonly believed, and it was in this context that Calvinism appeared.

More directly, Calvinism was part of an interdenominational (including some dissident Catholics like Erasmus) movement of Renaissance Humanism that addressed the Biblical texts directly and independently of Tradition. As ex-Reformed pastor turned-Orthodox Jim Nelson writes:

Although they are not terms often associated with Calvin (much less Calvinism!) in this day and age, John Calvin was a liberal humanist and college radical before he became known as a Protestant Reformer. His critiques of Roman Catholic theology began with (and to a large extent, are a result of) his study of the works of Jacob Faber and Desiderius Erasmus.
...
In two words, the reason the “humanist” moniker fits Calvin is 1) that he took the human side of the text seriously and 2) he applied the scientific method to his study. The facet of Renaissance humanism that all three philosopher-theologians adopted was this philological method of studying written texts, including scripture. It was believed, based on a particular interpretation of Greek philosophy, that texts could be read scientifically and that authentic meaning was inherent to the texts themselves rather than to the combination of text and interpretive tradition that had grown up around the text.

It had never been a predominant Christian idea that naked texts could be accurately understood. Rather than the naked text, interpreters sought to be faithful to the normal and accepted interpretation of the text. Naked texts without contexts were too easily misconstrued because the way that humans use words is not precise. The same phrase used by the same person in different contexts could imply two very different things. Correct meaning had to be drawn from something larger than just the text.

https://justanotherjim.wordpress.com/2010/12/29/john-calvin-student-radical-and-humanist/

This of course does not mean that reading a text on its own does not have value, or even necessarily escape the bounds of what Tradition teaches on a topic. However, taken to an extreme, this independent method could create a situation where the scholar believes that he has found the right "inherent" meaning, but in fact divorced from context and common Christian beliefs, the scholar has ventured far from the original Christian understanding.

In real life, the Calvinist "Bible-only" approach led to divergence from Calvin's conclusions themselves, as those brought up in the early modern Dutch Reformed community began to judge the Bible by themselves and arrive at conclusions different from Calvin.
The book Calvin and His Influence, 1509-2009 explains:

the general current of ideas [at the end of the 18th century in Holland] was turning away from Reformed orthodoxy. Some liberal theologians, just like the neologians, thought that Calvin might be regarded as a forerunner of liberal theology in that he ha removed the shackles of medieval dogmatism.

[Reformed novelist Betje Wolf whose husband was a Calvinist minister wrote that she did not want to look through] "glasses ground by Luther or Calvin' [and said] "I do not ask anyone what I should believe; the rule of my faith and life has been written down in the Holy Book". [Wolf said] "good-bye to dogmatism and sectarianism and moved away from Calvinism... It is the duty of Protestants to believe for themselves: each individual alone determines the number and contents of his or her articles of faith. Free investigation is characteristic of the Protestant Church... She wished to return to the "simple faith" of the Bible."

Paulus van Hemert... resigned from the ministry in 1784... [and] the Dutch Reformed Consistory... praised his public acknowledgment of his dissenting views... According to van Hemert, the core of all religion was to be found in the ethical principles offered by God... and in the life of Jesus. he protested against the view that the church... should consider Jesus' death as the major issue of his appearance.... Van Hemert was a fervent advocate of the Protesant principle that each believer should judge for himself in religious matters... In his inaugural address [at the Remonstrant seminary,] he discussed the theory that Christ and his apostles adapted their terms... to the understanding of the Jews... of their day, but much less comprehensible for later generations. This viewpoint was of course a frontal attack on scriptural authority.​
https://books.google.com/books?id=oxx2jFeVYWQC&pg=PA204&lpg=PA204&dq="Age+of+Enlightenment"+calvinism&source=bl&ots=Dv9qIP84iP&sig=oXFjv5dP9im-9PclKl4pOxd_wao&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwic9rDh5uLKAhXBaD4KHVMBCLkQ6AEIOTAF#v=onepage&q="Age of Enlightenment" calvinism&f=false

Finally, it's helpful to see how Calvinism helped developed the growth of the Enlightenment later. As Nelson notes:

Among the Continental Lutherans Romanticism was the philosophy du jour while the British Calvinists leaned toward what would become Enlightenment Rationalism. Protestant theology has always tended to be shaped the regnant philosophy of the age.

https://justanotherjim.wordpress.com/2010/12/29/john-calvin-student-radical-and-humanist

Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a key Enlightenment thinker and a Calvinist.

Having... returned to the austere Calvinism of his native Geneva..., Rousseau maintained a profession of that religious philosophy and of John Calvin as a modern lawgiver throughout the remainder of his life... His assertion in The Social Contract that true followers of Jesus would not make good citizens may have been another reason for Rousseau's condemnation in Geneva. ...
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Jacques_Rousseau)

Rousseau attempted deleting the historic creeds of the discrepancies and contradictions that he found prevailing within them. To him religion was not so much the product of ignorance and fear as the corruption of the original instinct through the selfishness of man, who erected rigid creeds that he might arrogate himself unwarranted privileges or escape the obligations of natural morality. He felt a trace of true religion was found in every faith and creed, but Christianity retained most of the original truth, and purest morality. He found the Gospel so sublime and simple that he could scarcely attribute it to men. Its irrational elements he attributed to the misconceptions of the followers of Jesus and to Paul, with who he had no personal communication
(http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/d/deism.html)

Another foundational enlightenment thinker was Pierre Bayle.

If the Geneva Calvinists kept Pierre Bayle safe from Catholicism, they could not shield him from doubts about religion. For, at Geneva, Bayle discovered the works of Descartes and began to doubt not only Calvinism, but the Christian Faith itself.
Having completed his studies, Bayle served as a tutor and then as a professor at a Calvinist seminary in France.

Whether he was an atheist or not, Bayle was certainly a religious skeptic. This skepticism inspired him to write his most important work, The Historical and Critical Dictionary.
Bayle’s Dictionary was a powerful tool in spreading skeptical doubt. ... Men like the French thinkers Diderot, Montesquieu, and Voltaire read the Dictionary and took inspiration from it. For this reason, Pierre Bayle has become known as the “Father of the Enlightenment.”

http://www.catholictextbookproject.com/wp-content/uploads/LTN_1_Supplement_Age_of_Enlightenment.pdf

 

[genuineoriginal]

Thanks for your replies, genuineoriginal!

You asked a good question about what is meant by Biblical Christianity.

Perhaps this could mean strictly the teachings of the New Testament directly given in its verses. So if Paul writes and intends to say that Christ is a moving "spiritual rock" (1 Cor 10:4), and not a "stream of water", then strictly speaking it would contradict part of Biblical Christianity to teach the opposite while calling the apostolic teaching "foolish".

Perhaps, but the Old Testament is quoted 845-855 times in the New Testament, so we can't exclude any of its teachings.
So, if the Ten Commandments state not to make any image and bow down to it and the New Testament states to keep away from idols, then the Catholic church shows that it is not practicing Biblical Christianity.

But more fundamentally I mean the major "basics" of Christianity as we understand it, as expressed in the Nicene Creed and Bible.

By including the Nicene Creed, you have moved away from Biblical Christianity.

If people taught that the Old Testament did not predict the Messiah's resurrection, or that Jesus' body stayed physically dead and he just rose "spiritually", that would contradict our understanding of Christianity's basics. It might not be a fundamental issue of Biblical Christianity whether one thinks God was present following the Israelites

Yes.

or whether one hugs or kisses a cross while praying.

I disagree.
Hugging and kissing a cross is falling into the same type of idolatry that was practiced with Gideon's ephod.

So which do you think we should mean by this in our thread question, Genuine?

Biblical Christianity is practicing the form of Christianity taught in the New Testament with all of the prescriptions found in it and all of the prohibitions found in both the Old and the New Testaments.

 

[Serapion]

The Nicene Creed is quite thoroughly Biblical.

 

[genuineoriginal]

The Nicene Creed is quite thoroughly Biblical.

:rotfl:

You are quite mistaken.

 

[rako]

So what do people think about the thread questions?

 

[Crucible]

The Catholic Church did a mighty job of divinizing everything from communion right down to the recent bead count on a rosary. Even Luther, who holds to baptismal regeneration and the real presence charged the RCC with having become dubious in it's rites and even idolatrous in it's customs.

The 'downgrading' of tradition actually had it's start straight from the first cause of the Reformation altogether, despite that Luther was the most conservative when it came to traditions.
This new thing served a primary purpose of stripping the RCC of it's power, as tradition at best was equal to the scriptures and at others even outweighed them. It became clear to many that if the scriptures are opposed to tradition, than the RCC is perpetuating a grand falsehood.

This would later culminate to the notion that Popes were sons of perdition, and that Revelation speaks explicitly of the Roman Church herself.

Because of this growing animosity, the main tap of theological warfare was, in fact, through Enlightenment ideology and reason. It was the 'red pill'. Luther, and even more so Calvin, especially looked to St. Augustine's works- being that he was formerly a Stoic, he had a more focused perception that lacked with most others after his conversion (he was a theological Archimedes).

 

[User Name]

Calvin...[called] Galileo and Copernicus

those dreamers who have a spirit of bitterness and contradiction, who reprove everything and prevent the order of nature. We will see some who are so deranged, not only in religion but who in all things reveal their monstrous nature, that they will say that the sun does not move, and that it is the earth which shifts and turns. When we see such minds we must indeed confess that the devil posses them, and that God sets them before us as mirrors, in order to keep us in his fear. So it is with all who argue out of pure malice, and who happily make a show of their imprudence. When they are told: “That is hot,” they will reply: “No, it is plainly cold.” When they are shown an object that is black, they will say that it is white, or vice versa. Just like the man who said that snow is black; for although it is perceived and known by all to be white, yet he clearly wished to contradict the fact. And so it is that they are madmen who would try to change the natural order, and even to dazzle eyes and benumb their senses. http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/j...rnicus-and-heliocentrism#sthash.TosdEfJM.dpuf

Well spotted with that quote from Calvin re Copernicus and geocentrism. I suspected that there was more to this story than our resident Calvinists were admitting. Now we have the proof.

 

[User Name]

The Nicene Creed is quite thoroughly Biblical.

:rotfl:

You are quite mistaken.

Prove it (1 Thes 5:21 KJV).

 

[genuineoriginal]

Prove it (1 Thes 5:21 KJV).

I am assuming you are referring to Serapion who made the laughable statement that the Nicene Creed is quite thoroughly Biblical.

 

[User Name]

I am assuming you are referring to Serapion who made the laughable statement that the Nicene Creed is quite thoroughly Biblical.

He can prove it is while you prove it isn't.

 

[TulipBee]

Can the "Reformed" Approach (eg. Calvinism, Evangelicalism, Presbyterianism, but not Lutheranism, Catholicism, or Orthodoxy) lead away from Biblical Christianity?
.

No

 

[Crucible]

What isn't taught about Galileo is that he was wrong for most of his profession. He is seen as the 'father of modern science' only because, in his one time being right, saw moons orbiting Jupiter which obviously led him to believe that not everything revolves around the Earth.

The heliocentric model wasn't provable- but just as he has been divinized in the scientific community, so to is it easy to just hurl credit at him where it is not due and make him to be some martyr.

He was put on house arrest, not because of the discovery but because people got tired of it, annoyed by his consistent spirit against what was taught by the Church, which he made an obsession out of.

So.. for anyone railing on Calvin for having railed on Galileo, there you go.

 

[User Name]

What isn't taught about Galileo is that he was wrong for most of his profession. He is seen as the 'father of modern science' only because, in his one time being right, saw moons orbiting Jupiter which obviously led him to believe that not everything revolves around the Earth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJv9nRjNJdw

 

[rako]

Hello, Crucible.

The Catholic Church did a mighty job of divinizing everything from communion right down to the recent bead count on a rosary. Even Luther, who holds to baptismal regeneration and the real presence charged the RCC with having become dubious in it's rites and even idolatrous in it's customs.

The 'downgrading' of tradition actually had it's start straight from the first cause of the Reformation altogether, despite that Luther was the most conservative when it came to traditions.
This new thing served a primary purpose of stripping the RCC of it's power, as tradition at best was equal to the scriptures and at others even outweighed them. It became clear to many that if the scriptures are opposed to tradition, than the RCC is perpetuating a grand falsehood.

This would later culminate to the notion that Popes were sons of perdition, and that Revelation speaks explicitly of the Roman Church herself.

I am Eastern Orthodox and am not necessarily advocating Roman Catholicism in this thread. RC has a teaching of magisterial infallibility that their Tradition can be infallible when their bishops unanimously agree on it. I guess an RC can question whether their bishops really all agreed on something, and then use any lack of unanimity to argue a dissenting view. Eastern Orthodox only teach that the Seven Councils (eg. Nicea and Chalcedon, which Protestants should be familiar with) might be infallible. I wish I could put EO under my Avatar to the left.

Because of this growing animosity, the main tap of theological warfare was, in fact, through Enlightenment ideology and reason. It was the 'red pill'. Luther, and even more so Calvin, especially looked to St. Augustine's works- being that he was formerly a Stoic, he had a more focused perception that lacked with most others after his conversion (he was a theological Archimedes).

Thanks, this was a major point I was trying to make.
One of the implications becomes the question of where this Enlightenment reasoning will take it if we apply it to Christianity's original stories. Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson used it to reach different conclusions than we would.

 

[rako]

Hello, Crucible.

He was put on house arrest, not because of the discovery but because people got tired of it, annoyed by his consistent spirit against what was taught by the Church, which he made an obsession out of.

I think that this was a major aspect of the Enlightenment. I can see how this "spirit's" trajectory could lead away from Christianity's basics, even if the Christian community's tradition is not "infallible". I think one would have to rely on a very careful balance on teachings that were definitely harmful and destructive to the core of Christianity, and secondary issues. For example, personally, I consider veneration of relics to be a secondary issue. In my personal view, RCs are not actually "idolizing" saints' objects or treating them like "idols"/gods. At worst, if there was no holiness or spiritual use in them, the relics would be fetishes, not actually idols. But in any case, in this thread I am not even talking about RC veneration of relics.

So my point is that if there was a fundamental problem with the RCs' theology, like if they actually taught that Mary was God or co-equal to Christ in directly bestowing grace or if they actually considered relics "gods", it would be right to dissent/protest fully. Whether one would then by oneself go about creating a parallel Church structure ex nihilio with no direct apostolic succession is another question.

 

[rako]

II.(A) What was the Reformed attitude to Scripture and Tradition, and did its downgrading of Tradition in effect cut the anchor loose from its theology?

Under the Reformed approach, its adherents read the Bible to seek the Truth about religion, without relying on Tradition as a central, crucial authority to understand either. The Second Helvetica Confession has two sections explaining that traditions outside the Bible are made by fallible men and so they disagree (correctly) with those writings when the writings are mistaken. But this Confession does not balance that with a section on the centrality of Tradition.

Reformed do not ban the use of Tradition per se, and it's not as if they don't use it at all. For example, in his tract supporting Infant Baptism, Calvin mentioned Augustine. In his long chapter in the Institutes on the Eucharist (Book 4, chp 17), he discusses Tertullian and Augustine a few times. As mentioned by GeuinineOriginal above, Augustine's theology provided a springboard for some of Calvin's unique, controversial ideas on salvation. The quite long Second Helvetica has two short paragraphs discussing two Church fathers, and it mentions a third in passing.

But in practice the fathers are not treated as a key authority in debates. When Christian Zionists debate nonZionist Reformed (eg. the majority in PCUSA), both sides have a noteworthy tendency to deride the Church fathers. (see eg. PCUSA's Zionism UnSettled)

Theoretically, this could work. A believer could pick up a text like John's Revelation and correctly guess or "know" the true meaning. And God's Spirit could miraculously guide the believer through every chapter in the Bible so that he always understands every passage. Some Reformed claim that the Spirit confirms their teachings to which they "feel led", as Paul Cook explains in his essay on the Library of Calvinism website:

Within Protestantism an appeal to personal experience has frequently been elevated above the authority of Scripture. We have all met those self-opinionated popes of Evangelicalism who pronounce with a note of infallibility upon any question by declaring “God has told me — so I know!” Too many of our popular beliefs and practices have been upheld by the authority of subjective experience.

We need to be careful about using phrases such as “I feel led” and “The Lord has guided me.” They can become an excuse for self-will. Our “guidance” must always be examined by the Word of God otherwise we may find ourselves claiming to be guided by the Spirit quite contrary to the Scriptures which He inspired. When our experiences are truly spiritual they are confirmed by Scriptural authority. But if the teaching of Scripture conflicts with our experience, then that experience is brought into question.

It is true that the Reformers spoke of the internal authority of the Spirit as well as the external authority of the Word. But they never separated the witness of the Spirit from the testimony of the Word. They taught that the internal witness of the Spirit constantly confirms to the believer the external authority of the Scriptures. The Roman Catholics transfer to the Church this function which is the prerogative of the Spirit and in this way elevate the authority of the Church above that of the Scripture and the Spirit.
http://www.the-highway.com/scripture_Cook.html

The problem is that the practical reality disproves this, as Reformed break up into dozens of sects over theological differences.

Why did Calvin not produce a commentary on the Book of Revelation, even though he made commentaries on almost every other Biblical book? One longstanding claim, albeit hearsay, was that Calvin could not understand this book, while another proposition was that he was too busy.

Let me give a personal experience researching Psalm 22 that illustrates Calvin's approach and the value of Tradition: When I went to decipher a key theological question between Judaism and Christianity - whether the Old Testament predicted Christ's death and resurrection, I looked at Calvin's commentaries. Christians commonly consider Psalm 22 a major prophecy of Christ, as Christ said its opening lines during the Passion - "My God my God, why have you forsaken me?"

The Psalm begins with a title To the chief musician. Upon the doe/star/strength of the morning. A psalm of David.

Theologians debate what the star/doe of the morning. I notice that in the New Testament, Jesus is repeatedly called the "morning star". In Revelation 22:16, Jesus says: "I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star." In astronomy, the morning star is a star/planet that appears before the break of dawn, just as Jesus appeared on earth before the arrival of heaven or the "New Earth".

Ikon of the Nativity star

Theologians often propose that "star/doe of the morning" refers to a melody or instrument, because it says that the Psalm is to be done "on" it. But what could this refer to? In Song of Solomon 2, there is a poem about a doe-like narrator being brought away from a walled enclosure by her free, buck-like beloved before dawn. Since Solomon was David's son, David could easily have known of this song. And since David's Psalm 22 is a psalm about God freeing the narrator from enemies, could Solomon's song about a doe-like narrator being freed in the morning be the "morning doe" referred to in the title?

Calvin comments:

To the chief musician. Upon the hind of the morning. A psalm of David.

This inscription is obscure; but interpreters have needlessly perplexed themselves in seeking after I know not what sublime mystery in a matter of small importance. Some are of opinion that the word אילת, ayeleth, means the morning star; others that it denotes strength but it is more correctly rendered hind[doe]. As it is evident, from the testimony of the apostles, that this psalm is a prophecy concerning Christ, the ancient interpreters thought that Christ would not be sufficiently dignified and honored unless, putting a mystical or allegorical sense upon the word hind, they viewed it as pointing out the various things which are included in a sacrifice. Those, also, who prefer translating the original words, אילת השחר, ayeleth hashachar, the dawn of the day or morning, 497 have endeavored to do the same thing. But as I find no solidity in these subtleties, it will be better to take that view of the title which is more simple and natural. I think it highly probable that it was the beginning of some common song; nor do I see how the inscription bears any relation to the subject-matter of the psalm.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/calvin/cc08/cc08027.htm

When I read this, I grew interested in what mystical meaning the doe might have in the eyes of the interpreters whom Calvin mentioned. Jesus said to search the scriptures, even though the apostles didn't understand the resurrection prophecies in it according to Luke 24. That is, even though they followed Jesus, they didn't understand the prophecies until Jesus "opened their minds". This calls into question how easily understandable the prophecies are.

For me, Psalm 22 feels like a fascinating, mystical, visionary poem, and it is interesting for me to consider how the reference to the morning star could be a reference to Jesus who is called "morning star" in the New Testament. Yet Calvin simply says that such considerations of Christian interpreters, by which I think he likely includes the Christian traditions he met, are "needless perplexing" and that this is a "matter of small importance". But such a response leads away from deep searching into the mystical truths of scripture.

Where else, for example, does the "morning star" so clearly refer to the Messiah in Jewish literature? Isaiah's reference to Lucifer is one, where Isaiah seems to compare the wayward, defeated Nebuchednezzar with a morning star, a verse often associated with a bad angel. It seems that David's Psalm 22 offers a much clearer association between a morning star and the Davidic Messiah. It would have been much more interesting and helpful to me if Calvin had relayed what exactly the Christian interpreters had in mind about this passage. Longstanding Christian traditions I think are valuable enough that they should be retold down to future generations so that they too can see deeper Christian meanings in scripture.

(cont. below)

 

[rako]

There are common sense reasons why Traditions should be considered a crucial authority. Normally, if we want to understand a religion's key mystical texts, we consider what other writers from that era thought about it. If we want to understand Luther and the Book of Concord and come across uncertainties, we can help clear them up by reading other Lutherans' writings from the time period. If we want to understand Quran, we look to the hadiths. Sura 53 in the Quran has a story that sounds like it is talking about the "splitting of the moon" as if it is a real Islamic miracle. But it sounds fantastic enough that one might guess that it was a metaphor. The hadiths however propose that this was a real miracle, and that helps clear up Quran's intent. The same thing could be said about the key texts in Hinduism or Buddhism.

Many Christians propose that the early saints of 30-300 AD are a proof of Christianity's Truth because they suffered and persevered under persecution, holding to their faith. Shouldn't then the writings of these "truly faithful" major saints who either lived at the same time when the New Testament was written (30-100 AD) or one or two generations later (eg. until 200 AD) be considered a very important tool? The apostles not only preached the gospel to their audiences and disciples, but they naturally would have expounded their meaning. And the meaning of Christianity was something that the New Testament says Jesus revealed to his disciples, expounding the inner meaning of parables that the public might not understand.

The New Testament expressly advises that Christians should try to follow their Christian traditions, as Paul says:

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." (2 Thess 2:15)​

Paul tells the Corinthians the same thing in 1 Corinthians 11:2:

"I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you."​

A major objection by Reformed is that Roman Catholics consider Tradition "infallible" and that in fact some Roman Catholic traditions have become deeply flawed. However, I am not arguing for the RC view on "infallibility". Rather, even if in the course of 1500 centuries Tradition had been corrupted by Calvin's time, this is still not enough reason to severely downgrade Tradition's worth. Christians should be capable of looking at Tradition, even with its potential flaws, and reaching good conclusions on major questions. If no one taught dispensationalism until the modern period, and in fact the Church taught the opposite, then the Church's tradition can be a key reason against this innovation. That usefulness is not negated just because in medieval times the Pope began to act more like an emperor in relation to the rest of the Church. There is no requirement that we accept all traditions regardless of when they appeared just because in general we consider it a major authority.

Another issue among self-identified Reformed might be how infallible and intelligible exactly they treat scripture. Many of them declare the "formal sufficiency of scripture", whereby the Bible is "perspicuous" - easily understood and lucid independent of other literature. A second, more liberal group of Reformed who rely much more on modern "critical scholarship" in effect does not treat the Bible as "infallible" in the vulgar sense of the term with all its connotations. Naturally, the first group sometimes disputes that the latter should really be considered Calvinist. But both groups share a common Biblical foundation and accepts common Reformed teachings without treating the 1950+ years of Church Tradition as crucial.

Each group however comes up against the same major problem with its method of interpretation. While Reformed propose that they have the true method for finding the Truths of the Bible and religion, those who use this method have broken into dozens of sects over what those Truths are. In fact, no one group makes up a majority of Protestants, which shows that the approach that they share has not provided its users those Truths.

Pew's full list of Reformed categories/denominations can be found through the link in the list below:

Detailed Summary of Protestant Denominations by Tradition and Family

Presbyterian in the evangelical tradition

Presbyterian Church in America
Associate Reformed Presbyterian
Cumberland Presbyterian Church
Orthodox Presbyterian
Evangelical Presbyterian
Reformed Presbyterian
Congregational Presbyterian
Bible Presbyterian Church
Conservative Presbyterian Church
Independent Presbyterian
Covenant Presbyterian Church
ECO: A Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians
Charismatic Presbyterian
Ethnic Presbyterian (if born again)
...

Congregational in the evangelical tradition

Conservative Congregational Christian
National Association of Congregational Christian Churches
Evangelical Congregational
Independent Congregational Church
Ethnic Congregationalist (if born again)

...
Reformed in the evangelical tradition

Christian Reformed Church
Sovereign Grace
Evangelical Reformed
Independent Reformed
Reformed Church in the United States (German Reformed)
Calvinist
Protestant Reformed Church

Presbyterian in the mainline tradition

Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
Scotch Presbyterian
United Presbyterian
Presbyterian Church of Canada
Southern Presbyterian; Presbyterian Church in the United States
Ethnic Presbyterian (if not born again)

Reformed in the mainline tradition

Reformed Church in America (Dutch Reformed)
Free Hungarian Reformed Church
Reformed, ambiguous affiliation (if not born again)
Reformed, not further specified (if not born again)
http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/appendix-b-classification-of-protestant-denominations/

The list of Arminian, Evangelical, Baptist, and non-mainstream churches that came out of the Reformed movement goes on so far that to paste it all would be spam. An abridged, broader list compiled by Pew can be found below:

(cont.)