But that is exactly what is meant by Tradition--consensus. And often this was arrived at by synods of Bishops. Arius wracked the Church precisely because he sought by his own authority, or by invoking the authority of others, to define the consensus regarding Father, Son and Holy Ghost. When Constantine convented the Council at Nicaea, they ruled that his notion about Jesus were novelties. That, however, did not end the matter. The Arians made a comeback and were able to persuade the Emperor finally to bring that theologian back to Court. Only his sudden death prevented his return to favor. The Emperor himself was torn between the factions, and his son was an Arian, or Semi-Arian. So not good to bring the matter of his Baptism in the mix. Who don’t know the nature of his faith.
As to that controversy, it took a long while for the Church to work out a doctrine of how to treat those who “fell alway,”especially those who did so in time of persecution. Costantine’ s Ediction of Toleration came after more than two generations of savage persecution by the Roman authorities. It caused great bitterness, and of course permanently divided the African Church, which defied all the efforts of St. Augustine to remedy, until he felt he had to result to compulsion. Some called for re-baptism, but that did not take hold. Then came pubic penance. Then finally private confession and penance.
The Reformation did away with that, or at least in the Reformed tradition. At the root of that was the rejection of the authority of the priesthood to act in the name of the Lord.
“No doubt that with Baptism comes the indwelling of the Spirit, but when two persons of equal merit, or so it appears, come to different conclusions about a point of doctrine, then how is the matter to be settled except by the Church?”
It isn’t, especially since the Catholic Church is wrong about most everything. It is no authority on doctrine, and its repeated failures and crimes over the centuries certainly robs it of any authority it claims for itself. These days, it is proud of its ability to be meaninglessly important.
The history of corruption and heresy within Christianity is long and varied. Christ Himself warned us of it, and so did the Apostles. Shall we believe every heresy that comes from some supposed Holy man?
Which should I believe? The Christ who calls me to submission to Him, or the Catholic Church that says I must submit to the Pope or face hell fire? Obviously, one is Biblical, the other is not.
“All of us, profit by opening and reading Scriptures, but what seems to you as a perversion of Scripture I do not, and it is not because I follow Tradition and you do not, but because you follow a different tradition. “
That isn’t even slightly true. I was raised Catholic, and I converted to Christianity without any knowledge of Baptist “tradition” or anything else. I merely read, and studied on my own, and discovered I agreed with the Baptists, and to a certain degree with the Pentecostals, when later I decided to see what they believed.
I’m pretty sure that most thinking people don’t just agree with whatever they’ve heard from others, but also read the scriptures to see if some claim is true or not.
It’s this level of discernment that many denominations, not just the Catholics, fail to use.
1 John 4:1
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
1 Timothy 4
1Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;2Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;3Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
Galatians 1
6I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:7Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.8But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.9As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other Gospel”. All of these scriptures I have used can certainly be used against the Catholic Church and its centuries of mixing Christianity with paganism. Or, rather, mixing its Paganism with Christianity. There is no justification here for obeying some “authority” mindlessly, and a focus on traditions and weird doctrines not given to us by the Apostles is also specifically condemned in the Bible.
The Gospel of the Bible does not involve brown scapulars, queens of heaven, requirements against priestly marriage, infant baptism as a requirement for salvation, required attendance at mass, required submission to the Papal authority as a requirement of salvation, and so on and so forth.
As for Constantine. The heresy of baptism as a requirement for salvation for the forgiveness of sins is not a Arian one, but a Catholic one. It is one of many Catholic hoops that must be jumped in order to achieve salvation, and his interest in Arianism was but a failure of the Roman church to absolutely persuade him to join one version of heresy over another. The end result is the same. Constantine is dead, and he is likely not in a good place if he had faith in baptism to cleanse him of his sins.