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.

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.

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).

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

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.

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’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/wh...

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

The Bible, of course, and the living prophets.