The problem with your post is your assumption that anything not mentioned in Scripture is not permissible. We’ve been over this before. This premise is wrong, because the NT records only vignettes of the *beginning* of the Church as led by the Holy Spirit, and not the *whole* of it.
You also assume that the teaching of the Apostles consists solely of 27 books of text, firmly excluding their oral teaching and their practice, their example. This stance I, paradoxically, unBiblical, since the NT authors repeatedly tell us to cling to the Tradition, that which is handed down by the Apostles both in writing and by preaching and practice, which is the example are to follow.
This is why so much Apostolic teaching is unknown go you.
It is significant, too, that you assume that most of the early Church was wrong about most things. It’s as if Christ’s promises were null.
We may not get past that. Sad.
Pray for me please-— family situation.
Peace.
Yes, we've been over this before. If we allow Roman Catholicism's "Tradition" based on the multi conflicting ECFs, then we have to allow the Mormon their writings, the Muslim their writings, etc.
We only have one set of books declared to be Scripture.
You also assume that the teaching of the Apostles consists solely of 27 books of text, firmly excluding their oral teaching and their practice, their example. This stance I, paradoxically, unBiblical, since the NT authors repeatedly tell us to cling to the Tradition, that which is handed down by the Apostles both in writing and by preaching and practice, which is the example are to follow.
You presume the "Tradition" Roman Catholics rely upon contains the oral teaching of the Apostles. You cannot confirm that.
For that matter, none of us have that. It would be impossible to collect that....though it would be nice to have all of Paul's sermons on tape/disc!
If Rome places so much value on the ECFs...why didn't they incorporate them into the NT Canon at Trent? I've asked that numerous times and no Roman Catholic has given a satisfactory answer.
We can learn from the NT what the "traditions" the Apostles were talking about. BTW...it's only in three places traditions are addressed in the affirmative. In 10 places they are addressed in the negative usually by Christ in referring to the rules set up by the Pharisees. Might want to take note of that one.
It is significant, too, that you assume that most of the early Church was wrong about most things. It’s as if Christ’s promises were null.
I have no problems with the early Church, especially what we see in Scripture. What I do have a problem with is Rome's rendition of what happened after the 1st century. So much of Roman Catholicism cannot be found in the very early church. We see it developing in the 3rd century at the earliest.
Prayers to God for your unspoken request!
“since the NT authors repeatedly tell us to cling to the Tradition,
Post those traditions that are the official list referred to in the NT.
... or just tell the truth that no one knows.
You are arguing that phrase is a blank check to mean whatever Rome claims.
It is not. It is undefined.
“most of the early Church was wrong about most things. ”
It doesn’t exist before 100ad. There is no proof an Apostle taught any of the things we discuss.
“Pray for me please-— family situation.
Prayers up.