I think that you're missing the point. Frank Viola & George Barna spent a great deal of time proving that many of our current church traditions have pagan origins, but they are not claiming that this makes them inherently wrong or evil. Their expressed purpose for showing the pagan roots is simply to remove the misconception that our long held traditions were mandated by the Bible, and are, therefore, above being questioned. It is only after divorcing these traditions from the Bible that the author goes on to attack them.
Well , first off , Viola is an instutional wolf in home clothing . He was just as abusive in leadership doing the same things as what he rants against .
But , that is just an aside .
Ok , so , you say that it isn't about paganism being evil but that longstanding traditions are not based in the "bible" . Then why is the word "pagan" used instead of "secular" ? By using "pagan" , you are saying that the christianity has been compromised by false religions - what most of us have been discussing . If the word "secular" or something similar was used , it would show more clearly what you have been saying that they are saying .
Yet , that doesn't matter does it ? How many people do you know really care what is "biblically" based ? You certainly don't .
Point one : you use the term "bible" ( even capitalize it ) . This is a tradition that is not based in the Scriptures nor alluded to .
Point two : you didn't realize that traditions were not Scriptural by your own readings and observations of the Scriptures . You needed other humans pointing it out . And , from your saying that those two men "spent a great deal of time proving" something shows that they were not using the Scriptures only .
Point three : the whole idea of needing a Scriptural basis for tradition does not have a Scriptural basis . It is self-contraditing and hypocritical to use that concept .
My point is ... Very , VERY , few people who *claim* the value of the Scriptures actually look into them for a basis for the doctrines to which they adhere . Look at water baptism ... there are many people in groups named after the ritual . They won't even look at the Scriptures to show that their doctrine is not necessary for salvation . And , even though they would "say" that it wasn't needed for salvation , they would insist on it for their members ( in one way or another ) .
And , the doctrine of Scripture only ( sola Scriptura ) has so-little to go on from the Scriptures that the "experts" who "prove" the doctrine will quote two or three sentences from the Sriptures while having many pages of explaination as to why SS is correct . If you can't use the Scriptures only , you can't prove the doctrine of "Scripture only" . There are now those that claim that it isn't a doctrine but an application of a doctrine and so , it doesn't need to have a Scriptural basis .
Only a small handful of the major Christian doctrines have a sound Scriptural basis . But , none seem to care - especially those who claim that they do care .
