Which Is More Important?  The Bible or Church Tradition?

The Bible is the Word of God and should be the foundation upon every thing you or your church does.

(Mark 7:9-13) And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Water baptism doesn't save anybody, the Bible says this is how you are saved:

(Romans 10:9-13) That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

When the Christians began to convert the non Christians, it clearly tells us in Acts, that "whole households" were baptized at the same time. It does not tell us that only adults were baptized. We also have the example of Judaism. Their ritual for entry into their covenant relationship with God is circumcision at 8 days old. Christianity has replaced that with baptism as our entry sacrament into the new covenant. It has been done since the beginning. Jesus even told us to "suffer the little children to come to me". After the faith was legalised by Constantine, the Church called a great council to decide what writings that had survived the 300+years of Roman and Jewish persecution would be collected and approved for teaching the faith. The yardstick they used to see if the writings measured up to the standard was Sacred  Tradition. If the writings did not conflict with the Sacred Tradition that had been taught from the beginning, then they were included. One thing that many people don't seem to realize is that the bible too is part of our sacred tradition.It was compiled by the Catholic, it stood for over 1200 years up until Luther modified it to fit with his new religion in the 1500s

Gods word of course. Church traditions are manmade if they corrupt Gods word.


Matthew 15:3 — But Jesus answered and said unto them, Why do ye transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?



Mark 7:9 KJV — And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.


Colossians 2:8 KJV — Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.


Infant baptism is not biblical. Its unholy tradition in some assemblies, and amounts only to a quick shower.

The Bible’s answer
Baptism refers to a person’s being submerged in water and coming up out of it. That explains why Jesus was baptized in a sizable river. (Matthew 3:​13, 16) Likewise, an Ethiopian man asked to be baptized when coming to “a body of water.”​—Acts 8:​36-​40.
The meaning of baptism
The Bible compares baptism to burial. (Romans 6:4; Colossians 2:​12) Water baptism symbolizes a person’s dying to his past course of life and beginning a new one as a Christian dedicated to God. Baptism and the steps that lead up to it are God’s arrangement for a person to gain a clean conscience based on his faith in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. (1 Peter 3:​21) Thus, Jesus taught that his disciples must get baptized.​—Matthew 28:19, 20.

Does the Bible teach infant baptism?

No, it does not. Christian baptism is for those old enough to understand and believe in “the good news of the Kingdom of God.” (Acts 8:​12) It is linked with hearing God’s word, accepting it, and repenting​—actions that an infant cannot take.​—Acts 2:​22, 38, 41.

In addition, the Bible shows that God views the young children of Christians as being holy, or clean in his sight, because of the parents’ faithful course. (1 Corinthians 7:​14) If infant baptism were valid, those children would not need to have the merit of someone else extended to them. 

The link below addresses:
Does water baptism wash away sin?
What is christening?

As well as (3) "Misconceptions about Christian baptism"
https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/what-is-baptism/

The word came before the bible.
However, now we have a written bible that is full of magnificent stories.
Therefore, we can read the bible for understanding.

Remember, we can also consult others with a more vast knowledge of the bible for support.
Basically, we are receiving the best of both worlds, the bible along with scriptural teaching from another - the word.

Review Acts 2:38 & 39

"Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." 

"For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far away, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.” 

Luke 18:15 says, “Now they were bringing even infants to him” (Greek, Prosepheron de auto kai ta brepha). 
The Greek word brepha means “infants”—children who are quite unable to approach Christ on their own and who could not possibly make a conscious decision to “accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior.” 

The Holy Scriptures, the inspired Word of Jehovah, acknowledged as the greatest book of all times because of its antiquity, its total circulation, the number of languages into which it has been translated, its surpassing greatness as a literary masterpiece, and its overwhelming importance to all mankind. Independent of all other books, it imitates no other. It stands on its own merits, giving credit to its unique Author. The Bible is also distinguished as having survived more violent controversy than any other book, hated as it is by many enemies.
For more information JW.ORG

Fundamentalists often criticize the Catholic Church’s practice of baptizing infants. According to them, baptism is for adults and older children, because it is to be administered only after one has undergone a “born again” experience—that is, after one has “accepted Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior.”

At the instant of acceptance, when he is “born again,” the adult becomes a Christian, and his salvation is assured forever.

Baptism follows, though it has no actual salvific value. In fact, one who dies before being baptized, but after “being saved,” goes to heaven anyway.

Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38).

But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added, “For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him” (2:39, emphasis added).

We also read: “Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name” (Acts 22:16).

These commands are universal, not restricted to adults. Further, these commands make clear the necessary connection between baptism and salvation, a connection explicitly stated in 1 Peter 3:21: “Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

Opposition to infant baptism is not a new phenomenon. In the Middle Ages, some groups developed that rejected infant baptism, e.g., the Waldenses and Catharists.

Later, the Anabaptists (“re-baptizers”) echoed them, claiming that infants are incapable of being baptized validly. But the historic Christian Church has always held that Christ’s law applies to infants as well as adults, for Jesus said that no one can enter heaven unless he has been born again of water and the Holy Spirit (John 3:5).

His words can be taken to apply to anyone capable of belonging to his kingdom. He asserted such even for children: “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 19:14).

Fundamentalists are reluctant to admit that the Bible nowhere says baptism is to be restricted to adults, but when pressed, they will.

They just conclude that is what it should be taken as meaning, even if the text does not explicitly support such a view. Naturally enough, the people whose baptisms we read about in Scripture are adults, because they were converted as adults. This makes sense, because Christianity was just beginning—there were no “cradle Christians.”.

The present Catholic attitude accords perfectly with early Christian practices. Origen, for instance, wrote in the third century that “according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants” (Holilies on Leviticus, 8:3:11 [A.D. 244]).

The Council of Carthage, in 253, condemned the opinion that baptism should be withheld from infants until the eighth day after birth. Later, Augustine taught, “The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned . . . nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic” (Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

Fundamentalists try to ignore the historical writings from the early Church which clearly indicate the legitimacy of infant baptism.

They attempt to sidestep appeals to history by saying baptism requires faith and, since children are incapable of having faith, they cannot be baptized.

The Fundamentalist position on infant baptism is not really a consequence of the Bible’s strictures, but of the demands of Fundamentalism’s idea of salvation.

In reality, the Bible indicates that infants are to be baptized, that they too are meant to inherit the kingdom of heaven.

The witness of the earliest Christian practices and writings must once and for all silence those who criticize the Catholic Church’s teaching on infant baptism.

The Catholic Church is merely continuing the tradition established by the first Christians, who heeded the words of Christ: “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God” (Luke 18:16).

Jesus mentioned tradition when speaking to the pharisee's of his time. He said: "Thus you make the word of God invalid by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like this." Mark 7:13
Modern churches do pretty much the same thing. For example, Infant Baptism: The Bible does not teach or direct that infants should be baptised. Christian baptism is for those old enough to understand and believe in "the good news of the Kingdom of God." (Acts 8:12)
It is linked with hearing God's word, accepting it, and repenting - actions that an infant cannot take.
Also, the Bible shows that God views the young children of Christians as being holy, or clean in his sight, because of the parents faithful course. (1 Corinthians 7:14)
If infant baptism were valid, those children would not need to have the merit of someone else extended to them.
There are a few misconceptions about Christian baptism.
1. Misconception = Sprinkling or pouring water on a person is an acceptable substitute for complete immersion.
    Fact = The baptisms mentioned in the Bible all involved immersion. For example, when the disciple Philip baptised the Ethiopian man, they "went down into the water" for the baptism. Afterward, "they came up out of the water." - Acts 8:36-39
2. Misconception = The bible implies that infants were included when entire households were baptised. For example, it says of a jailer in Philippi: "He and his entire household were baptised."  -  Acts 16:31-34
    Fact = The account of the Jailers conversion indicates that those who were baptised understood "the word of Jehovah" and that they "rejoiced greatly."
Acts 16:32,34
Those facts lead to the conclusion that any infant in the jailer's household would not have been included in the baptism, because they could not understand the word of Jehovah.
3. Misconception = Jesus taught infant baptism by saying that the Kingdom belongs to young children. Matthew 19:13-15; Mark 10: 13-16.
    Fact = Jesus was not discussing baptism when he said those words. Instead, he was showing that those who would qualify for the Kingdom of God must be childlike - meek and teachable. Matthew 18:4; Luke 18: 16,17.

The Bible, of course, and the living prophets.

<<But I can't even find any baby in the Bible being baptized? Explain.>>

There are references to entire households being baptized. The verses indicate that every member was baptized at the same time. 
The verses don't differentiate between old and young, infant or adult.
So the implication is that this would include some infants too.

Secondly -- From History, we learn that the very FIRST time the issue of 'infant baptism' was brought up and discussed within the Christian communities at the time.
The topic, according to what was recorded was NOT whether or not it was biblical or if they 'should' - but instead HOW soon after birth SHOULD the baby be baptized. - Immediately or wait 3 days. 
That's right... from History, when Infant Baptism was the topic, Early Christians were MORE concerned with how FAST they could do it.. and NOT debating IF it was biblical or not.

So the Bible does not EXCLUDE Babies from being baptized AND
Early Christians never saw it fit to even debate the topic. Their primary concern was whether or not to follow the Jewish tradition of presenting the Baby in the Church 'as soon as possible' OR to wait 3 days.

This is how well established the teaching was - that it wasn't even seriously challenged until some 1,500 years later, until after the Protestant Reformation.

The BIBLE. Church tradition can't save you.

The BIBLE is able to save your soul. James 1:21

While the Bible is important and the church tradition is also important, more important than the Bible and church tradition is the Divine Soul; God itself that lives within. That's why the Bible says God lives in the temple of your heart; the Bible says the kingdom of God is within, and the church tradition agrees. Therefore if we want God, if we want to realize God, we have to go within, we have to realize the Divine Spirit, the Soul or Atman. That is the most important.

If church tradition contradicts the Bible, it shows that this church doesn't follow Christ.

No Infant Baptism. In view of the fact that ‘hearing the word,’ ‘embracing the word heartily,’ and ‘repenting’ precede water baptism (Acts 2:14, 22, 38, 41) and that baptism requires the individual to make a solemn decision, it is apparent that one must at least be of age to hear, to believe, and to make this decision. An argument is made by some in favor of infant baptism. They refer to the instances where ‘households’ were baptized, such as the households of Cornelius, Lydia, the Philippian jailer, Crispus, and Stephanas. (Acts 10:48; 11:14; 16:15, 32-34; 18:8; 1Corinthians 1:16) They believe that this implies that small babies in those families were also baptized.
But, in the case of Cornelius, those who were baptized were those who had heard the word and received the holy spirit, and they spoke in tongues and glorified God; these things could not apply to infants. (Acts10:44-46). Associated with baptism were such things as hearing, believing, and glorifying God, things infants cannot do.
The religious historian Augustus Neander wrote of the first-century Christians: “The practice of infant baptism was unknown at this period. . . . That not till so late a period as (at least certainly not earlier than) Irenaeus [c. 120/140-c. 200/203 C.E.], a trace of infant baptism appears, and that it first became recognised as an apostolic tradition in the course of the third century, is evidence rather against than for the admission of its apostolic origin.”​—History of the Planting and Training of the Christian Church by the Apostles, 1864, p. 162.

Well, 2 Timothy 3:16, 17 shows that the Bible was inspire by God. So, who is higher, God or men? Also, please, keep in mind what Peter said in Acts 5:29.

God judges on how you respond to Him, not on how you respond to church tradition.

How stupid is it to follow the traditons of a church of those who do not know God?

And how will you know that except you know and follow God?

The Bible has that "whole households" were baptized.  Most denominations assume this meant children as well, but, some disagree.

The Bible ALWAYS is more important than Tradition.  Tradition can add doctrine that isn't in the Bible, but, not all denominations accept it.

Well...let's start off with an obvious thing:
the selection of the documents to be included in the Bible
is not from the Bible.
It is from "church tradition" (and note: different churches, different tradition in that regard).

SO
if the contents of your Bible were determined by church tradition
and if (we can imagine) church tradition could have chosen a very different set of documents to include in the Bible
(and, arguably, in some cases this is true)
then
clearly
church tradition has more authority than does the Bible
because church tradition dictates what is in the Bible
and
therefore
what the Bible teaches
(rather than vice-versa).


>> Example:  I was baptized as an infant in a Lutheran church.  Church tradition taught that such a rite resulted in the guarantee of salvation for the infant.  But I can't even find any baby in the Bible being baptized?  Explain. <<

Well...
obviously, again...
just because you can't find mention of an infant being baptized in the Bible
does not mean that it is wrong to baptize an infant
or that it is not efficacious to baptize an infant.

There are a couple of Bible passages
that SUGGEST that all members of a household
including infants (if any)
and slaves and their families (if any)
were baptized.
Of course, that's not explicit, and we can (therefore) imagine a person of property who did not own slaves and did not have any infants in their home...
but that would be contrary to expectation.

Some things (like water baptism) are so routine and widely practiced that there is no need to put much about them in writing. That's Tradition for you! 

Very true no baby ever Got baptized in the greek Scriptures. Jesus was 12 years old when he started understanding the scrolls/bible. He was a man in his 30s when he was baptized (Jesus didn't need to get baptize because he was perfect. But he did so, to set the example as a humble one) and started traveling and preaching.  (Luke 2:41,49; 8:1)

1 John 4:1  Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired statement, but test the inspired statements to see whether they originate with God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. (1 Timothy 3; 2 Timothy 3:16,17)

The bible. Look wat Jesus said to the pharisees:

In Matthew 15
3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

Traditions can go completely against what God has declared.

Mark 3:35
Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.”

I cannot think of any Christian tradition (Protestant or Catholic, and certainly not Lutheran) that taught salvation was guaranteed to anyone just because they were baptized. What the rite DOES do is mark the acceptance of the person, whether adult or infant, as included in the congregation. 
 
The New Testament evidence of infant baptism is pretty thin. The closest I can recall is a reference to someone being baptized with "all his household." Churches that practice infant baptism point to that as evidence that infants were included; churches that do not practice infant baptism say it means only those who were adults. 
 
I don't see much difference, in practice. Those who are baptized as infants have adults who promise to raise them as Christians, and when they become adult members of the church they go through "confirmation," meaning specifically that they confirm the promises themselves. It's the same promises, either way.

Jesus never baptised anyone, but he instructed his disciples to teach all nations and baptise them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. (Matthew 28:19)  He didn't say adults only.  As for Lutheran tradition, they do not claim that baptism guarantees salvation.

The bible is more important, churches just interpret the bible to suit their agenda.

the church used to only baptize adults till it realized it was easier to indoctrinate people when they are young