What is gratuitously asserted is gratuitously denied.
1) Firstly, do let me know how you know there are to be 27 Books in the NT Canon without Apostolic Tradition? Based on Apostolic Tradition, it was the Catholic Church, in the 4th Century, (382 A.D.) that determined this: "A council probably held at Rome in 382 under St. Damasus gave a complete list of the canonical books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament (also known as the 'Gelasian Decree' because it was reproduced by Gelasius in 495), which is identical with the list given at Trent." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Rome
Martin Luther said: "We are compelled to concede to the Catholics that they have the Word of God, that we received it from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of it at all" (paraphrase).
Yet Luther called the Epistle of St. James "an Epistle of Straw": "Therefore, St. James' Epistle is a perfect straw-epistle compared with them, for it has in it nothing of an evangelic kind." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther's_canon#Hebrews,_James,_Jude_and_Revelation You see, important decisions like the Canon of Scripture were never left to the private judgment of one individual. They were taken by Bishops in Councils.
2. Second, what Tradition are you talking about that allegedly contradicts the Scriptures? Apostolic Tradition never contradicts the Apostolic Scriptures. In another thread, you mentioned you believe Baptism washes away sins, as it says in Acts 22:16, correct, DJT? I agreed with that, and gave some Scriptural references supporting that view. The Church Fathers also agreed, and that view is called Baptismal Regeneration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptismal_regeneration
Even Infant Baptism is an Apostolic Tradition. Origen says: "The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]). See for source. https://www.catholic.com/tract/early-teachings-on-infant-baptism
And if you want a Scriptural Reference for that, it is the famous passage in Acts 2:38-39: "38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”
Children are not excluded from the gift of the Holy Spirit, hence they too can be baptized. Also, based on Col 2:11-12 etc, it is evident that Baptism in the NT has replaced Circumcision in the OT. But Circumcision was administered to children born in Jewish households. So, also, Baptism is given to children born in Christian households. In other passages in Acts, we read that entire households were baptized, a description that almost certainly would have included children: "33 At that hour of the night, the jailer took them and washed their wounds. And without delay, he and all his household were baptized." (Acts 16:33). Compare: "And every male in Abraham’s household, including those born in his household or bought from a foreigner, was circumcised with him." (Gen 17:27). Baptism is the NT equivalent of circumcision. That is very clear.
Wiki says: "Most Christians belong to denominations that practice infant baptism. Branches of Christianity that practice infant baptism include Catholics,[3] Eastern[4] and Oriental Orthodox,[5] and among Protestants, several denominations: Anglicans,[6] Lutherans,[7] Presbyterians,[8] Congregationalists[9] and other Reformed denominations,[citation needed] Methodists,[10] Nazarenes,[11] Moravians,[12] and United Protestants.[13] Opposition to infant baptism is termed "catabaptism". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_baptism
Apostolic Tradition does not contradict the Apostolic Scriptures. It may contradict someone's interpretation of it, though.
God Bless.
1) Firstly, do let me know how you know there are to be 27 Books in the NT Canon without Apostolic Tradition? Based on Apostolic Tradition, it was the Catholic Church, in the 4th Century, (382 A.D.) that determined this: "A council probably held at Rome in 382 under St. Damasus gave a complete list of the canonical books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament (also known as the 'Gelasian Decree' because it was reproduced by Gelasius in 495), which is identical with the list given at Trent." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Rome
Martin Luther said: "We are compelled to concede to the Catholics that they have the Word of God, that we received it from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of it at all" (paraphrase).
Yet Luther called the Epistle of St. James "an Epistle of Straw": "Therefore, St. James' Epistle is a perfect straw-epistle compared with them, for it has in it nothing of an evangelic kind." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther's_canon#Hebrews,_James,_Jude_and_Revelation You see, important decisions like the Canon of Scripture were never left to the private judgment of one individual. They were taken by Bishops in Councils.
2. Second, what Tradition are you talking about that allegedly contradicts the Scriptures? Apostolic Tradition never contradicts the Apostolic Scriptures. In another thread, you mentioned you believe Baptism washes away sins, as it says in Acts 22:16, correct, DJT? I agreed with that, and gave some Scriptural references supporting that view. The Church Fathers also agreed, and that view is called Baptismal Regeneration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptismal_regeneration
Even Infant Baptism is an Apostolic Tradition. Origen says: "The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]). See for source. https://www.catholic.com/tract/early-teachings-on-infant-baptism
And if you want a Scriptural Reference for that, it is the famous passage in Acts 2:38-39: "38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”
Children are not excluded from the gift of the Holy Spirit, hence they too can be baptized. Also, based on Col 2:11-12 etc, it is evident that Baptism in the NT has replaced Circumcision in the OT. But Circumcision was administered to children born in Jewish households. So, also, Baptism is given to children born in Christian households. In other passages in Acts, we read that entire households were baptized, a description that almost certainly would have included children: "33 At that hour of the night, the jailer took them and washed their wounds. And without delay, he and all his household were baptized." (Acts 16:33). Compare: "And every male in Abraham’s household, including those born in his household or bought from a foreigner, was circumcised with him." (Gen 17:27). Baptism is the NT equivalent of circumcision. That is very clear.
Wiki says: "Most Christians belong to denominations that practice infant baptism. Branches of Christianity that practice infant baptism include Catholics,[3] Eastern[4] and Oriental Orthodox,[5] and among Protestants, several denominations: Anglicans,[6] Lutherans,[7] Presbyterians,[8] Congregationalists[9] and other Reformed denominations,[citation needed] Methodists,[10] Nazarenes,[11] Moravians,[12] and United Protestants.[13] Opposition to infant baptism is termed "catabaptism". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_baptism
Apostolic Tradition does not contradict the Apostolic Scriptures. It may contradict someone's interpretation of it, though.
God Bless.
You mentioned infant baptism as a tradition. This one, unscriptural,
thing alone is a major problem because it violates the very fundamental foundation of salvation. Belief FIRST, confession of belief, repentance, baptism. Infants can't believe, can't confess, have not committed sin to repent of, and are typically poured on of water versus being baptized. IT'S ALL WRONG and contrary to scripture, and part of the false tradition!
Proverbs 14:12
12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
- 2
- Show all