What good reason is there to rule out traditional Christianity as a “tradition of men”? Why would a holy Christian tradition be impossible, biblically speaking?
>muh Pharisees
The tradition of the pharisees lacked the grace of Christ and the support and guidance of the Holy Spirit
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
There's no god and jesus didn't exist.
If you think that there is an extrabiblical apostolic tradition, you are the one with the burden to prove that.
The Bible is a tradition, there was a Church before there ever was a Bible, in fact Jesus Christ himself didn't come to this earth to give us a Bible, he came to earth to give us a Church i.e his saints
>The Bible is a tradition, there was a Church before there ever was a Bible
I asked for evidence of an extrabiblical apostolic tradition. What surviving historical evidence do you have for the content of the apostles' teaching other than the New Testament? Historians would be very eager to see it.
>I asked for evidence of an extrabiblical apostolic tradition. What surviving historical evidence do you have for the content of the apostles' teaching other than the New Testament? Historians would be very eager to see it.
1. Writings of the Church Fathers (e.g., Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome)
2. Apostolic Fathers' Texts (e.g., "Didache," letters of Ignatius)
3. Early Christian Creeds (e.g., Apostles' Creed, Nicene Creed)
4. Liturgical Texts (descriptions of early worship practices)
5. Councils and Canons (e.g., Council of Nicaea)
6. Patristic Citations of Lost Works (e.g., fragments of Papias)
7. Archaeological Discoveries (early Christian inscriptions, art)
8. Non-Christian Sources (e.g., writings of Josephus, Tacitus)
it was so considerate of the Apostles to leave behind a definitive written record of their oral traditions of whose authenticity we can be morally certain. We’re not Stone Age tribes. The Bible is written tradition. Tradition is tradition whether it be written or oral. Written tradition is way more trustworthy and reliable than oral. Therefore sola scriptura is better.
>Written tradition is way more trustworthy and reliable than oral.
So you accept the writings of the church fathers? Because that's written tradition, moron.
>Therefore sola scriptura is better.
Find me the list of the NT canon within scriptures, then. Sola Scriptura, after all.
The church fathers are not the apostles.
And where did the apostles give you the canon of scripture? Why wasn't, say, the book of Enoch included? Remember, Sola Scriptura.
You fundamentally misunderstand what sola scriptura means.
See
>You fundamentally misunderstand what sola scriptura means.
Why didn't you answer the question?
Because it's a red herring and it demonstrates that you don't get the concept, like he said
Nah. I think I'm just irrefutable.
Make an argument
That's a question. Make an argument.
>DEBATEE MEEEE, DUDE! PLEAAAASE! DEBATE MEEE!
An argument about what? What's your topic? Pick your poison.
What was my initial "goalpost," pray tell? Dumbass.
>What was my initial "goalpost," pray tell?
Oral tradition is reliable and trustworthy.
Okay, so what goalpost was moved? Since when was reliability tantamount to inerrancy? And since when were writings "oral" tradition, moron? Facepalm.
2 Thessalonians 15 demonstrates that Sola Scriptura is an unbiblical innovation.
>muh literacy
Not an argument.
Ok Squanto. You never played the game telephone as a child. Scripture is a definitive written record of the apostles. Where anyone can be morally certain of it.
>moving the goalposts.
So you just don't care at all about the teachings of Jesus and the apostles that aren't in the bible.
And you don't believe the apostles were capable of selecting teachers who could faithfully transmit their words to others.
Got it.
I can’t be morally certain of the authenticity of the teachings of Jesus outside of the Bible. And I’ve provided a conclusive answer that unwritten tradition is entirely unreliable and dangerous.
>can’t be morally certain of the authenticity of the teachings of Jesus outside of the Bible
So you don't trust the church to relay the words of the apostles. But you trust the book they compiled for you that contains just a fraction of what they taught.
That's backwards. You have lost the forest for the trees.
>unwritten tradition is entirely unreliable
Oral traditions of all kinds are well respected by anthropologists. Unless they happen to be Christian ofc, then they're just making it all up.
>So you don't trust the church to relay the words of the apostles. But you trust the book they compiled for you that contains just a fraction of what they taught.
While the Catholic church has changed over the centuries, the Bible hasn't had a bunch of new stuff added to it.
>So you don't trust the church to relay the words of the apostles
Yes
> But you trust the book they compiled for you
Yes
> That's backwards. You have lost the forest for the trees.
No it’s entirely safe and reliable.
> Why do you assume an ancient Christian oral tradition to be inherently morally uncertain? Does the fact of it being Christian not automatically make it trustworthy?
Church history. No just because it is supposedly Christian doesn’t make it trustworthy.
If you don't trust the church and her tradition, how can you trust that they really knew the Epistles and the Gospels they selected from the absolute mass of noncanonical writings were really written by the apostles instead of counterfeiters?
If you don't trust the church Jesus himself founded, why are you even a Christian?
I am part of the church Jesus founded. I can trust the Holy Spirit’s divine providence to provide the correct canon of scripture.
That argument is logically inconsistent because you only do this speak to authority for the nt. You don’t do this with the ot. Or else you would be appealing to the elders of Zion. Unless you are israeli too then this argument is entirely unconvincing.
I don't trust the Catholic Church of today is the same church as back then. The Orthodox have just as strong a claim as the Romans do.
East and West both enjoy apostolic succession. The Latins recognize the sacraments of the autocephalic eastern church.
> Church history. No just because it is supposedly Christian doesn’t make it trustworthy.
Wat? Are you even a Christian?
Yes I am Christian. There are many groups and people that claim to be Christian that are objectively not. There has to be an authority to judge a doctrine or word to whether it is Christian. Scripture alone is infallible and is able to correct and reprove any other authority
> I am Christian
Yet you’re skeptical of the entire Christian faith (other than the Bible) as “potentially corrupted”… right
> Scripture alone is infallible and is able to correct and reprove any other authority
So you would automatically discount the witness of all the saints as “fallible” as opposed to recognizing them rightfully as “holy” and “Godly” and seeing Christ in them
Sounds satanic
>Yet you’re skeptical of the entire Christian faith (other than the Bible) as “potentially corrupted”… right
What examples would you give for the Christian faith outside of the Bible?
>So you would automatically discount the witness of all the saints as “fallible” as opposed to recognizing them rightfully as “holy” and “Godly” and seeing Christ in them
False dichotomy.
The claim that sacred tradition as an authority on the same level as scripture is tantamount to inerrancy. You moved to well it Simon didn’t say Simon says to an example where unwritten tradition was wrong and dangerous. It just proves that it is a flawed standard.
> What examples would you give for the Christian faith outside of the Bible?
1. Creeds and Confessions (e.g., Nicene Creed, Apostles' Creed)
2. Writings of Church Fathers (e.g., Augustine, Athanasius)
3. Ecumenical Council Decisions (e.g., Council of Nicaea)
4. Liturgical Practices (e.g., Eucharist, baptism)
5. Christian Art and Music (e.g., religious icons, hymns)
6. Christian Mysticism and Spiritual Writings (e.g., Teresa of Avila)
7. Theological Works (e.g., writings by Thomas Aquinas)
>1.
Creeds and confessions are just summaries of what the Bible teaches. It is not outside of the Bible.
>2.
Subject to the authority of scripture. You wouldn’t say they are infallible.
>3.
Subordinate to scripture. Most of the time they don’t err with scripture.
>4.
Biblical. What examples do you think are not in the Bible?
>5
Doesn’t contradict scripture. What examples would you give that you think would?
>6
Subordinate to scripture
>7
Subordinate to scripture.
> Subject to the authority of scripture. You wouldn’t say they are infallible.
I would say the writings of the Church Fathers, while not infallible on an individual basis, are essential for interpreting Scripture. These writings are seen as harmonious with and interpretative of Scripture, guided by the Church’s teaching authority under the Holy Spirit. The Fathers provide historical and theological insights that reflect the apostolic teachings and the consensus of the early Church. Thus, while Scripture holds a primary place, the Fathers’ writings are a key part of the Sacred Tradition, which complements and elucidates the scriptural text. To give yourself licence to override the essential Christian tradition by calling it “fallible” is satanic.
>To give yourself licence to override the essential Christian tradition by calling it “fallible” is satanic.
It is not satanic. It is what the church fathers would have wanted. The most important rule understand when reading the fathers is how the fathers themselves wanted to be read? They wanted to be read as witnesses to holy scripture and to be judged by scripture. For instance Basil said in his 24th Homily against the Sabellians, Arians, and the Anomoeans, “And I exhort you not to be especially anxious to hear from me what is pleasing to yourselves but rather what is pleasing to the Lord, what is in harmony with the scriptures, what is not in opposition to the fathers.” Augustine writes in letter 82 to Jerome “For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error….As to all other writings, in reading them, however great the superiority of the authors to myself in sanctity and learning, I do not accept their teaching as true on the mere ground of the opinion being held by them; but only because they have succeeded in convincing my judgment of its truth either by means of these canonical writings themselves, or by arguments addressed to my reason.”
When the fathers deviate from scripture we don’t follow them in that area that is how the fathers wanted to be read. Martin Chemnitz says in his oration on reading the fathers of the church in Loci Theologici Augustine repeats the axiom articles of faith must be proved only on the basis of the canonical books. And the writings of other people must be read in such a way that one can disapprove of them or reject them when they don’t agree with canonical truth.
None of what you wrote has relevance to do with what I wrote. The Fathers provide historical and theological richness that trustworthily reflects the apostolic teachings and the consensus of the early Church. These writings are harmonious with the Bible, guided by the Holy Spirit.
The Bible contains the words of God, it is also the Christian tradition’s self-imposed standard and the earliest and principal stratum of written tradition. It’s status as being the words of God no way implies it should be harshly dichotomized against other holy writings in the exact same holy tradition.
>The Fathers provide historical and theological richness that trustworthily reflects the apostolic teachings and the consensus of the early Church. These writings are harmonious with the Bible
There are many examples where the church fathers do not reflect the apostolic teachings and are not harmonious with the Bible.
>Its status as being the words of God no way implies it should be harshly dichotomized against other holy writings in the exact same holy tradition.
Yes it does. When the other writings go against scripture then it should be rejected. My two quotes from Augustine and Basil explicitly say this.
Let me redefine a few terms. Sacred Tradition refers to oral tradition handed down by the apostles themselves. Not all tradition is Sacred Tradition - certainly not the church fathers, who weren't apostles. We don't believe that every bit of tradition is inerrant like scripture and Sacred Tradition is. Only ecumenical councils are inerrant within tradition, because the Holy Spirit protects these councils from committing error.
>Oral traditions of all kinds are well respected by anthropologists
Nope. That's a common myth.
Why do you assume an ancient Christian oral tradition to be inherently morally uncertain? Does the fact of it being Christian not automatically make it trustworthy?
How
“And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.”
>stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle
Seems obvious to me, it means apostolic tradition contains far more than what was written in the letters to the churches. Those scriptures are just part of the tradition, not the end of it. Discounting the rest would be a huge disservice.
Your presuppositions, namely SS and SF hold you back from reading the book as a child would.
Try your hardest to formulate this into an argument, please
>quote scripture
>explain it's meaning
>point out that meaning explicitly refutes the central point of a cherished presupposition
Cool deflection. Too bad it already is an argument, and you won't address it because you can't.
How do you know the assumption of Mary was unknown before the 5th century?
I read a book about it
>expecting written evidence of an oral tradition
How do you know it was an oral tradition?
Shut the frick up.
see
Calm down bud
Not reading that shit.
You should know better than to suggest the apostles never said anything authoritatively to trusted individuals without autistically writing it down first.
Lol
Why would you assume I'd click on your infograph after I already told you TLDR?
You aren't interested in conversation, because autism rules your interactions with this website. When was the last time you checked your post count?
A few of those should not have happened, which means many.
I don’t *know* but it's quite possible that the belief in Mary's Dormition and Assumption originated as an oral tradition within the early Christian community before being committed to writing in apocryphal texts and later theological writings. Early Christianity relied heavily on oral tradition to transmit teachings, stories, and beliefs before they were written down. This was a common practice in the ancient world, especially in the first few centuries after Christ. The so-called “development” of Christian doctrines just involved a process where oral traditions were gradually codified in written form, oftentimes in response to theological debates or the need for doctrinal clarification.
Also, the widespread acceptance of the belief in different Christian communities across geographical regions suggests it was part of the early Christian oral tradition, as it appears in various forms in both Western and Eastern (including Oriental) Christianity.
Thus, while there's no direct evidence that the belief in Mary's Assumption was originally an oral tradition, the patterns of transmission and development in early Christianity support this as a likely scenario.
I'll grant that it's possible, now prove it's true
Why did you duck, coward?
> I'll grant that it's possible
Good! Why deny it then?
>now prove it's true
You know Christianity is a faith, right?
Lmao, even
>there was debate in the early church
Point?
>4th century
>"No one knows"
That's not a theological opinion.
That's reason to believe there was no such oral tradition
Yes I do. Catholic art depicted a dead pre-assumption Mary into the reformation, which wasn't a problem of course since the assumption is a 20th century dogma.
Think about it: fundamentally redefining the gospel while Truman is in office. Is that apostolic?
> That's reason to believe there was no such oral tradition
A very weak reason, given the fact that he includes the Assumption as a viable possibility
>Yes I do. Catholic art depicted a dead pre-assumption Mary into the reformation, which wasn't a problem of course since the assumption is a 20th century dogma.
Actually, the Catholic Church does not declare definitively whether she was bodily assumed before death or after death. Again, wrong.
>Think about it: fundamentally redefining the gospel while Truman is in office. Is that apostolic?
The Lord has a history of assuming those dear to him into Heaven. He did it with Elijah and Enoch, after all. In what way does God assuming his Mother, his greatest creature, into Heaven "redefine" the Gospel?
>what is a dogma
That she was bodily assumed into Heaven is dogmatic, yes. Whether it was before death, or after death and she was resurrected and THEN assumed is freely left for debate. Facepalm.
You're right
That she was assumed at all is still an accretion and false gospel to declare as dogma
...you do realize that the Assumption doesn't actually require Mary to still be alive, right? She could've died, been resurrected by God, and THEN be assumed - In fact, that's exactly what the Orthodox believe what happened, IIRC. Typical misreading of the fathers by Dirk.
>You know Christianity is a faith, right?
You know the Catholic Church has declared fideism a heresy, right?
It’s not fideism to not require written proof for what, by every indication, was a purely oral tradition.
It's extremely fideistic considering historians disagree with your position.
No they don’t. Historians agree that the evidence suggests it's plausible that the belief in the Assumption of Mary could have existed as an oral tradition before it was documented in written texts. This possibility is congruent with the understanding of how many early Christian beliefs and practices were transmitted.
Read the numerous citations from historians Dirk has provided in this thread.
Their views are all interpretations based on the absence of early textual references to the Assumption and the first appearances of the belief in later Christian writings. Their conclusions do not represent a unanimous consensus.
You just made a claim about historical consensus. Where's your citation?
Citation?
>Find me the list of the NT canon within scriptures, then. Sola Scriptura, after all.
I can just as well say: find me an infallible list of all traditions, if tradition is infallible.
The Roman church makes up new "traditions" and dumps old ones all the time.
>I can just as well say: find me an infallible list of all traditions, if tradition is infallible.
...how is that in any way equivalent to what I just said. Seriously.
Nice copy-paste. Not all apostolic tradition is inerrant, as you just displayed. Not denying that. Only the rulings of the ecumenical councils are, the very councils that declared the canon of the Bible. Next.
A perfect example of the unreliability of unwritten sacred tradition is found in Irenæus.
In Against Heresies, Irenæus explains how Jesus was at least 50 when he died. Reading it as part of the whole really puts it in context showing just how dangerous and misguided it is to base believes and doctrines merely on unwritten tradition.
In Bk 2:25 Irenæus writes how those who believe Christ’s public career only lasted for one year robs “Him of that age which is both more necessary and more honorable than any other; that more advanced age” he further adds how Jesus began as an infant for infants, an adult for adults and “He was an old man for old men. He further notes how Jesus arrived at an “advanced age” which Irenæus understands to be no less than 50 years (!), writing, “He did not then want much of being fifty years old; and, in accordance with that fact, they said to Him, “Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?” Now this is an embarrassing fact (this I say, not to detract from all the good and pious and true things Irenæus wrote and taught) that many defenders of unwritten apostolic tradition shy away from. Irenæus misguidedly grounded this awkward historical blunder in. For he writes, “all the elders testify [that this is the case]; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information. And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan [died in 53 AD making Christ at least 53-56 years old at his death]. Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the statement. Whom then should we rather believe?”
This should serve as a stark and serious warning about the unreliability of unwritten traditions and how dangerous and mistaken appeals to it can be. Read the Holy Scripture and trust it, it alone is infallible and is able to correct and reprove any other authority. Unwritten tradition are liable to error and deception, even if otherwise good and trustworthy sources in the 2ndcentury ground them in apostolic teaching and preaching. If these cannot be trusted, then how much less should be trust the appeals to the Assumption of Mary in the 7th century or the defense of the worship of icons made in the 8th century being unwritten apostolic traditions? Indeed, according to Irenæus unwritten tradition taught that Jesus had a public ministry of at least 20-30 years! (From Jesus was 30 to He was 50-56)
The Church’s collective mind knows the 59 year-old thing is false. This doesn’t mean you throw out Tradition
According to Irenæus own words it was the consensus of the church at the time. Just shows the unreliability of unwritten tradition.
> it was so considerate of the Apostles to leave behind a definitive written record of their oral traditions of whose authenticity we can be morally certain
This is essentially what OP is asking. Why do you assume an ancient Christian oral tradition to be inherently morally uncertain? Does the fact of it being Christian not automatically make it trustworthy?
>Why do you assume an ancient Christian oral tradition to be inherently morally uncertain?
Begging the question
There are many traditions that are good and holy, and accord with scripture. No one denies this. That does not make tradition itself an infallible rule of faith.
> There are many traditions that are good and holy, and accord with scripture
Are they good and holy by chance, and thus liable to be wrong at any time (untrustworthy) or are they good and holy because they are guided by God?
> If you think that there is an extrabiblical apostolic tradition, you are the one with the burden to prove that
It exists and is historically continuously linked to the life of Jesus Christ. It exists very conspicuously I might add
He was asking about particular beliefs or practices, hence "traditionS" (plural)
He obviously didn't mean tradition as a whole body of knowledge
Take a given tradition, say the assumption of Mary. You need to prove it's antiquity (you can't)
It literally says there is in the NT.
2 Thess. 2:15
15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
This means that not all of the teachings of the apostles were written, they taught by word of mouth too.
Too easy.
I think with "tradition of men", the meaning is that man's way was above God's way.
So instead of basing it around Jesus Christ, you base daily pursuits on your forefathers. If you do tradition for the sake of tradition and how it's been done, you lose out on why it's being done, which is to emulate Jesus Christ.
Who are you quoting?
With what quote? The only argument I’ve ever seen used against the apostolic tradition by Protestants is to use Jesus’ critique against the pharisees.
"Traditional Christianity" is a "tradition of men"
Who said that to you?
>the apostolic tradition v Protestants
False dichotomy
Loaded question
> "Traditional Christianity" is a "tradition of men"
>Who said that to you?
Everyone who rejects apostolic tradition calls it the traditions of men, in order to discredit it. Because if it was the tradition of God/Jesus then they would have to submit to it.
Yeah that's kind of the whole issue, what is and what isn't of god.
Since you didn't answer the question I have to assume you imaged the scenario
I assert that protestantism is more apostolic than contemporary Roman catholicism or eastern orthodoxy. Not any instance of protestantism, but the classical reformed faith. It is more aligned with what the apostles believed and how they worshiped. This was the whole point of both (catholic and protestant) reformations, to reform the church back to the ancient faith.
What tradition, and why should it be obeyed?
Santa muerte is traditional. Is it valid?
A reformation implies a discontinuity, a break from tradition. By saying that the church relies on such discontinuities in order to stay true to herself, then you are denying the existence of any solid tradition that never needs reform.
I specifically mentioned the catholic (counter) reformation so you wouldn't make that mistake
The Catholic one of course doesn’t represent a break from Catholic tradition, and nothing like that even happened in the Orthodox world
Ok... The protestant reformation likewise does not imply anything like restorationism
Do you really deny the Protestant reformation is a break from sacred tradition? Doesn’t it explicitly seek to ground the faith in things deemed more objective than sacred tradition?
>1
I just said so
>2
No. That's an anachronistic discussion. Where do you think it "explicitly" says that?
Westminster Confession of Faith
Chapter I, Section 6: “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.”
This is a hard break from tradition
From what tradition?
Any tradition
You're grasping
You're coping
You have everything you need here to give a good answer. A foundational Protestant confession labelling all traditions as “the traditions of men”. Protestantism by nature universally assumes that no tradition can be “of God/Jesus”, I am asking why that should be considered a safe assumption.
You're equivocating on "tradition" as I've already touched on it
Wcf isn't saying there's any discontinuity with the modern, medieval and ancient church, it's saying all doctrines must be grounded in scripture. "Great tradition" vs "a tradition".
I’m talking about Sacred Tradition as the rule of faith—Protestantism sharply departs from this (for no reason).
So like I said you're using that term in a different sense than wcf and in a way that's anachronistic to the reformation
Are you catholic?
> So like I said you're using that term in a different sense than wcf and in a way that's anachronistic to the reformation
What is the meaning/relevance?
Wrong, the early Church Fathers' writings show they valued both Scripture and Apostolic Tradition, and not Scripture alone (sola scriptura), as authoritative for Christian teaching. They often referenced unwritten traditions and the Church's interpretive authority alongside the Bible.
> We do not believe that all tradition is the living and breathing word of God, as scripture is (2 Timothy 3:16). Thus tradition must necessarily be lower than scripture, which is the sole infallible rule of faith and doctrine.
You don’t have to believe that “all tradition is the living and breathing word of God” in order to see Tradition as divinely inspired and essential for interpreting Scripture, as a means to preserve and faithfully transmit the Apostles’ teachings, and to provide context and understanding for Scripture, guided by the Holy Spirit.
Ask yourself, if an apostle comes to you to preach the gospel; is his word the word of God? No; but is it still the authoritative interpretation of the scriptures? Yes
The point is that your accusation fails and reformation is perfectly consonant with apostolicity, as is sola scriptura.
I will assume you're catholic. Is the assumption of Mary apostolic? It was unknown before the 5th century but your church teaches it as dogma. How do you reconcile?
> reformation is perfectly consonant with apostolicity
Apostolicity is found in sacred tradition, and reformation is not consonant with (adherence to) sacred tradition, reformation by its nature and definition represents a discontinuity, a break from tradition.
> It was unknown before the 5th century
…You know that how?
>Is the assumption of Mary apostolic? It was unknown before the 5th century but your church teaches it as dogma. How do you reconcile?
I reconcile it the same way that Jude reconciled the Assumption of Moses narrative despite it not being found in any prior inspired scripture.
>Wrong, the early Church Fathers' writings show they valued both Scripture and Apostolic Tradition, and not Scripture alone (sola scriptura), as authoritative for Christian teaching
Sola scripture values both scripture and tradition as authoritative. But they are not *equally* authoritative. Church Fathers when opposing heresy argued from infallible scripture first and foremost, and appealed to tradition as a supplement.
>They often referenced unwritten traditions and the Church's interpretive authority alongside the Bible.
See above. The fundamental arguments over Christological etc. heresies were resolved by the Nicene Fathers with argument from scripture, not tradition or the Church's interpretative authority apart from scripture.
>Ask yourself, if an apostle comes to you to preach the gospel; is his word the word of God? No; but is it still the authoritative interpretation of the scriptures? Yes
Scripture is the rule of faith left by the apostles, to remain as an infallible guide after their living teaching ended. Scripture developed *because* there was approaching a time where apostles were no longer teaching, as is the case today.
> Scripture is the rule of faith left by the apostles
The apostles left behind much more than the Bible. The Bible is the Church's self-imposed standard and the earliest and principal stratum of written tradition, indeed…that hardly makes the Church “Bible-based”.
>Protestantism by nature universally assumes that no tradition can be “of God/Jesus”,
We do not believe that all tradition is the living and breathing word of God, as scripture is (2 Timothy 3:16). Thus tradition must necessarily be lower than scripture, which is the sole infallible rule of faith and doctrine.
And you have the exact same problem in reverse. You have people who try legitimise and enforce false teachings via claiming it is “apostolic tradition” and attack those who reject it as traditions of men, in order to discredit them. Because if it wasn’t the tradition of God/Jesus then the people enforcing it are preaching a false gospel.
A false gospel might just be coming out of the mouth of a moron, it’s not necessarily the “traditions of men”
>What good reason is there to rule out traditional Christianity as a “tradition of men”?
Well your question reads presupposing a position that has already been reached.
But if you aren’t just trying to bait post you already provided your answer in question in your INB4, because it….. “lacked the grace of Christ and the support and guidance of the Holy Spirit”.
>Why would a holy Christian tradition be impossible, biblically speaking?
It’s not.
>muh Pharisees
The tradition of the pharisees lacked the grace of Christ and the support and guidance of the Holy Spirit
Yes.
So the critique is still valid. Tradition of men =/= sacred tradition, even when it looks pretty darn sacred.
Sola scriptura doesn't reject tradition. False dichotomy.
Sola scriptura may not reject tradition, but tradition does reject sola scriptura
You concede btw
Early church fathers supported sola scriptura, so no
Why?
The Pharisees seem to me to be the best group there was before the time of Christ
If the church fathers supported trans people does that mean xer hecking valid?
Reminder that yeshu ben pantera was a pederast. That's why the gospel of mark mentions naked young men running away from yeshu's camp when the militia came.