Apostacy and the Recovery of the Church and the Churches

[Acolyte4236]

Originally Posted by Raptor

That´s not quite what I was asking. Neither was I implying that those that came before were not reliable. It´s really a genuine question, not an argument (not yet, anyway). But now that you mention it, you added "tried and tested", how? Is the test just a matter of time, longevity of teachings....so the test of time? Is it popularity, common teachings? So, tradition passes the test? "Can you show me the scriptural basis that teaches us that to understand the word of God we need to rely on what has been taught throughout church history?"

I take tried and tested to mean that the Church so judged their teachings to be correct. You seem fine accepting certain traditions from the church down through history. Take the designations of the Gospel names and authors. We have no manuscripts prior to 200-250 which designate the texts with those names. We rely on church tradition to know their authorship and such. Much the same is true with respect to the formal canon of scripture, that is the actual list of which books are inspired. That too is a tradition passed on from the church. But if you want to reject all tradition, but I don't recommend doing so.