Is Practice Authority?
(Via The Exhorter)
It is only natural and right that one should attempt to justify his religious practices, but in doing so he should appeal to the proper authority. In current discussions among brethren, I have been astonished at the reasoning employed by some in their arguments. Instead of citing authority of Christ, they have given prominence to the general acceptance with which a practice has met. Little difference exists between this and the open and expressed appeal to tradition on the part of the Roman Catholic Church.
A thing is neither right nor wrong merely because of practice, regardless of how highly esteemed or despised those engaging in it may be. Martin Luther was protesting against established practices when he objected to the sale of indulgences. Jesus Christ was condemned because he did not conform to "established practices" among the Jews.
Gospel preachers have always cried out against those "established practices" in conflict with the word of God. ((II Tim. 4:1, 2.) On the other hand, there have been instances when a thing has been condemned because it was not previously practiced. But practice, as such, does not constitute authority. Authority is vested in Christ. (Matt. 28:19.) What did the apostles do? (Phil. 4:9.) What does the Bible say? (II Tim. 3:16,17; I Cor. 4:6.)
A practice is right when there is divine authority for it. It is wrong if scriptural authority is lacking. What one has (or has not) said and done in the past does not change this in the least.