Don´t Protestant and Evangelicals follow traditions even though they claim otherwise?

Question

If not, explain these, which are not explicit in the Bible:
-each indivdual is allowed to interpret Scripture by himself
-God is three in one (God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit make up the Trinity-. No where does the Bible explain the Trinity)
-Jesus had two natures (human and divine)
-We attend church on Sunday- (In the OT we are told the Sabbath is Saturday)
-The Bible was ‘compiled’ by God- (Often protestants don’t realize the Catholic Church compiled the Bible)
-Sola Scriptura is Biblical - (see Jn. 5:39- the main pirpose of the Bible is testify of Christ, and 1 Tim. 3:15- the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth)
-Pastors should be elected by church members-. . In Acts, the remaining 11 apostles fill the “seat” of Judas
-Contraception is not a sin - ALL protestant churches changed their position after 1931

To kait:
So, in your doctrine contraception does not contradict the Bible?
Read:
Gen. 1:27-28 (Gen. 9:1; 35:11) - Adam and Eve told by God to be fruitful and multiply
• Gen. 2:21-24 - transmission of life through total self donation- one flesh
• Gen. 38:9-10 - Onan killed for spilling his seed on the ground
• Ex. 23:25-26 - blessings promised: no miscarrying, barrenness
• Lev. 20:13 - if man lies with man, put to death (wasting seed)
• Lev. 20:15 - if man lies with animal, put to death (sterile sex)
• Lev. 20:16 - woman lies with animal, put to death (sterile sex)
• Lev. 21:17-20 - crushed testicles is called a defect & blemish
• Dt. 7:13-14 - you will be blessed: no male or female barrenness
• Dt. 22:28-29 - no penalty prescribed for lesbian actions or relations between single man & single woman
• Dt. 23:1 - no one who is castrated shall enter the assembly
• Dt. 25:11-12 - punishment for potential damage to genitals
• 1 Tim. 2:11-15 - women saved through the bearing of children

Answer 1

Protestants object to tradition because they see it as something foreign injected into the gospel. Furthermore, they see it as something flatly condemned by scripture (Mark 7:8, et al). But actually, scripture doesn’t condemn all tradition but rather just tradition that is wrong (2 Thessalonians 2:15, et al). How we know the difference is the subject matter for the next section: magisterium. Sufficeth for our immediate purpose to say that the Bible endorses authentic tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:15; 2 Timothy 2:2; 2 Thessalonians 3:6; 1 Corinthians 11:2, et al). [A brief note: The NIV translates the word "Paradosis" as "tradition" where it is in a negative context (Matthew 15:3) and "teachings" where it is in a positive context (1 Corinthians 11:2).]
Not only is tradition endorsed by scripture, but it is simply common sense. All non-Catholic Christians believe it; though, to be sure, they won’t admit it. No Protestant, if he sat down and thought about it, would affirm that he believes something completely different from the earliest Christians that heard the gospel directly from the mouth of an apostle. One may immediately say that that is because he has scripture and has nothing to do with tradition. But that doesn’t work because I’m talking about advocates of sola scriptura that have diametrically opposing interpretations of scripture.
For example: Baptists believe in adult only baptism; Presbyterians affirm infant baptism. Lutherans top them both by believing in baptismal regeneration. Yet, which of them would say that the earliest Christians believed the other denominations’ position? Can one seriously imagine that the apostle Peter went about teaching adult only baptism, and the apostle John went about teaching infant baptism, and the apostle James went about teaching baptismal regeneration?
Contradictory teachings cannot both be "guided by the Spirit". For example, some Protestant groups will tell me that I must speak in tongues in order to prove I’m saved. Others will tell me that speaking in tongues was a phenomenon relegated to past ages but not legitimate today; anyone who does speak in tongues is following the devil. Can both of those opinions be "guided by the Spirit?" How do we know which, if either, is true? Both groups claim guidance by the Spirit and that they are "Biblical."
The question of which books belong in the Bible is itself a tradition. There is no divinely inspired table of contents. Who decided what books belong and what books do not? What authority did they have to do so? I know of a three-volume work on sola scriptura that purports to prove that the early Church fathers believed sola scriptura. The only problem is that if the author succeeds in proving his point, he disproves it. Why should I accept an appeal to tradition in order to prove that tradition is not authoritative? If the early Fathers believed sola scriptura, all I have to do is say, "So, what? I’m not bound to their traditions."
Sola scriptura also fails in that it is not taught in scripture. Nowhere does the Bible teach that it is the only and sole source of divine revelation. Most Protestant apologists appeal to 2 Timothy 3:16: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." The problem is that this verse nowhere makes the claim that the scriptures alone are profitable for teaching, reproof, etc. Furthermore, when that letter to Timothy was written by St. Paul, there was no codified New Testament canon. So if Timothy was to get from this verse that only scripture is the vehicle for revelation, he would have understood "the scriptures" to mean the Old Testament; and then he would have had four different canons to choose from.
My last point on tradition is that no Protestant approaches the scriptures in a vacuum. He brings his presumptions – i.e. traditions – to the scriptures. If I am a Calvinist, I will interpret everything in a way consistent with my Calvinist tradition. Thus, 1 Peter 3:21 will not be referring to baptismal regeneration but will be making a point consistent with my presuppositions. Protestant practice is therefore a proof that tradition is an authoritative interpreter of scripture. Protestants assume what they claim is impossible to believe. Catholics believe in sacred Tradition and admit it; Protestants believe in sacred Tradition and don’t admit it.

Answer 2

Encrustations laid over the pure teachings are the ways people avoid the true purpose of religion which is to unify humanity. Human interpretations and blind imitations differ widely, religious strife and disagreement have arisen among mankind, the light of true religion has been extinguished and the unity of the world of humanity destroyed. The prophets of God voiced the spirit of unity and agreement. They have been the founders of divine reality. Therefore if the nations of the world forsake imitations and investigate the reality underlying the revealed Word of God they will agree and become reconciled. For reality is one and not multiple.

Answer 3

The only Tradition that is useful and holy is the Tradition of the Catholic Church ... the only Church that Jesus ever personally founded, authorized, empowered, and eternally guaranteed, and the Church of which Jesus will remain the head, until the end of time.

All the rest are merely traditions of men.

Answer 4

Traditions are not the problem. Unbiblical traditions are the problem. The availability of the Scriptures throughout the centuries is not the determining factor. The Scriptures themselves are the determining factor. We now have the Scriptures readily available to us. Through the careful study of God’s Word, it is clear that many church traditions which have developed over the centuries are in fact contradictory to the Word of God. This is where sola scriptura applies. Traditions that are based on, and are in agreement with God’s Word can be maintained. Traditions that are not based on, and/or are in disagreement with God’s Word, must be rejected. Sola scriptura points us back to what God has revealed to us in His Word. Sola scriptura ultimately points us back to the God who always speaks the truth, never contradicts Himself, and always proves Himself to be dependable.

Recommended Resource: Scripture Alone by James White.

Answer 5

Yes, they have developed their own tradtions and hold them very dear even though some of them do not come from Holy Tradtion of the early Christian fathers or the the Apostles.

Answer 6

Most sects do one thing or another (or many things) that they simply shouldn't or need not do. It's about making up the rules as they go along as is typical in religion.

Answer 7

I think it's fair to say they do and they modify their views (liberalization) based upon other scriptures and the examples of Jesus.

Answer 8

They're all Catholics in their hearts.