Yes, but none of us is Paul (although I suspect that many think they are) and we do not have the insight he had. Either the canon was closed in the first century, and hence the Holy Spirit no longer guides us as He did the apostles in the first, or it is still open and all the self-proclaimed prophets throughout the centuries have been right in that they are taught by God alone and in no need of any external teaching by the church. If the latter is true, all the teachers appointed by the apostles were superfluous and actually harmful for the Christians, who were supposed to learn straight from God, just as Paul did.
Nope. That attitude is totally a repeat of what happened in Jewish culture, which was anticipated by Christ (that people would again and again repeat that teaching as you are putting forth), hence the universal meaning of "be on your guard against the Pharisees".
Furthermore, I can't see how it is you effectively consider yourself exempt from your own rule when you proceed to revolutionize tradition. How dare you oppose Aquinas or tradition? (I am speaking from your own attitude) On what basis? "God alone" is the one who speaks even when it is people through whom he speaks, and that's why what they say will yield and align to the word of God. Paul would constantly "proof-text" himself with the Old Testament.
Clearly you are saying to me "examine your inevitable tradition" when it disagrees with you.
And clearly, you are saying to me "don't oppose tradition" when it disagrees with you.
Every ideology out there pulls those tricks, I've seen it come from Atheists, who would defend the sanctity of their values and accuse religious tradition. The answer is always: truth. And they all have the same reaction to that. Speaking of which, I am most accustomed to your attitude coming from atheists
, so you can consider my beliefs examined. Sacred buzzwords, "equality, sexism" and such. If you consider church tradition so sacred, how does it not bother you that egalitarianism did NOT start as a movement within the church and to this day is mostly promoted by the secular atheist world? How is it--according to your proposed need for intellectual dependency on the church--that they
managed to see the light about egalitarianism, equality, and sexism, while managing to completely HATE God, AND the church, AND the Bible? How did THEY manage to pull that off, Krizo?
And yes, atheists are the source of the buzzwords "religious tradition" also.
So what happens when we examine the origins of your
influences? (i.e. belief systems similar to yours, as you claimed mine were similar to Aquinas?)