[quote=Genesis315]Tradition is not independent of Scripture as the link claims. In fact, they are intimately intertwined. It was through Tradition that the specific books of Scriptures were judged to be inspired. It’s Tradition that confirms that Jesus was speaking literally in John 6. It’s Tradition that clears up seeming inconsistencies like Baptising “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” and Baptising in the “name of Jesus Christ.” It’s Tradition that reminds us that baptising infants is efficacious. It’s Tradition that gives us our whole correct interpretation of Scripture and fills in the gaps caused by the silence of Scripture on various issues. What does it mean when Scriptures are silent on something? Our interpretation of Scripture must jive with what was preached orally by the Apostles.
Don’t let Protestants fool you. They claim Sola Scriptura, but they also have their traditions they appeal to. One is Sola Scriptura itself. It’s this tradition that tells them the Bible is the sole rule of Faith. It’s their tradition that tells them that divorce is ok. It’s their tradition that says they can have female clergy. It’s their tradition that say one must “accept Jesus as personal Lord and Savior.” it’s their tradition that tells them to think they have assurance of Salvation. It’s their tradition that says they need not confess their sins to a priest. It’s their tradition to cast aside Baptism as a worthless ritual. There interpretation of the Bible is all based on various traditions (Obviously not all these traditions apply to all Protestants)
that is extremely well put. I have to give you some kudos for explaining this in a way in which I had not yet heard it explained. Well done!