[ex-snook]

""Tradition" is anti-biblical and most of the time contradicts scripture anyway. "

Tradition is older than Scripture.

[UsnDadof8]

Your position on tradition makes the bible a useless document, since "tradition" along with the church magisterium can contradict the bible all the live long day and get away with it.

Jesus and his disciples criticized tradition and often disobeyed it. Jesus (contrary to the Catholic church) declared that tradition could be a bad thing in two circumstances.

1. When it contradicts scripture ("You therefore nullify the word of God with your traditions")

2. When it is elevated to an equal plain with scripture ("Teaching for doctrine the commandments of men")

The idea of the church and it's leaders being infallible is controverted by Paul warning the elders in Acts that even from their own midst people would come and try to destroy the flock of God. See also I Tim "they shall turn away their ears from the truth...". As a matter of fact, the vote that declared the Pope and the College of Bishops to be infallible only passed by a narrow margin. I guess only some of them were infallible that day, huh ?

[Lilllabettt]

One wonders what the sola-scriptura folks think the first Christians had to go on. They didn't have a canon of scripture, only the teachings passed on to them from the Apostles.

Where in the Bible does it say "only these letters of Paul, and these four Gospels, and Revelations, shall be considered inspired?" Nowhere. The contents of the Bible were decided by the members of the Church, who allowed the tradition they inherited from their successors to guide them in deciding what was orthodox and what was not.