Foundation

[awfulthings9]

I’ve started this thread because our brother in Christ, myfavoritemartin, seems to have a lot of sincere questions about the difference between our faith and his (Baptist). Before we tackle the specific doctrines, it is necessary for us to understand the foundation for his belief. Myfavoritemartin, could you please answer the following questions so we know where you’re coming from as a believer?

1. You disagree with Catholic traditions, which is fine for now, but could you point us to the verse in the Bible which tells us to go by the Bible alone?
2. In the first century, there were dozens to hundreds of “epistles” and “gospels” floating around. If we go by the Bible alone, where does the Bible tell us which 27 were supposed to be included?
3. Since the New Testament wasn’t compiled until around the fourth century, how did the first and second century Christians learn about Christ?
4. Since you don’t go by anything outside the Bible, you would have a problem with Catholics believing in things like “Purgatory” since that word doesn’t appear in the Bible. Could you tell us why you believe in the “Trinity”, which also doesn’t appear in the Bible?
5. In another thread you pointed out that the Bible condemns “traditions”. Yet, in verses like 1 Cor. 11:2 uphold traditions (your translation might say “ordinances”, but ordinances and tradition come from the same Greek work “paradosis”). Is Scripture contraditing itself?
6. Scripture tells us to hold to the teachings of the apostles, both written and oral (2 Tim. 2:2, 2 Thes 2:15). Can you tell us some of the oral teachings - those that weren’t written down that you believe in?
7. Lastly, if God is the truth, is the pillar and foundation of the truth Scripture? If so, why does 1 Tim. 3:15 tell us it is the church?

God bless you in your studies.

 

[awfulthings9]

bump

 

[Fredricks]

If the person who was asked the question does not respond, I relish the chance.
But it is rude to cut.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

As I mentioned before I am but a mere layperson.
I am going to do my best to share how I feel and relate the gospel as I understand it.

1. You disagree with Catholic traditions, which is fine for now, but could you point us to the verse in the Bible which tells us to go by the Bible alone?

The Bible is for tradition where it supports the teachings of the apostles (2 Thess. 2:15) and is consistent with biblical revelation. Yet, it is against tradition when it “transgresses the commands of God” (Matt. 15:3). By Jesus’ own words, tradition is not to transgress or contradict the commands of God. In other words, it should be in harmony with biblical teaching and not oppose it in any way. This is where I struggle with issues such as celibacy and refraining from meats spoken about in 1st timothy 4 1-3.

1. In the first century, there were dozens to hundreds of “epistles” and “gospels” floating around. If we go by the Bible alone, where does the Bible tell us which 27 were supposed to be included?
   I follow only those scriptures inspired by the holy spirit
2. Since the New Testament wasn’t compiled until around the fourth century, how did the first and second century Christians learn about Christ?

It is my understanding that these letters epistles and gospels were sent to diffrent churches for example while paul was in jail he sent of many of his works.To be used as guidance in preaching the gospel(good news) prior to being assembled in the 3rd century by the church.

1. Since you don’t go by anything outside the Bible, you would have a problem with Catholics believing in things like “Purgatory” since that word doesn’t appear in the Bible. Could you tell us why you believe in the “Trinity”, which also doesn’t appear in the Bible?

Matthew 28:19 works for me.

1. In another thread you pointed out that the Bible condemns “traditions”. Yet, in verses like 1 Cor. 11:2 uphold traditions (your translation might say “ordinances”, but ordinances and tradition come from the same Greek work “paradosis”). Is Scripture contraditing itself?

see 1.)

1. Scripture tells us to hold to the teachings of the apostles, both written and oral (2 Tim. 2:2, 2 Thes 2:15). Can you tell us some of the oral teachings - those that weren’t written down that you believe in?
2. Lastly, if God is the truth, is the pillar and foundation of the truth Scripture? If so, why does 1 Tim. 3:15 tell us it is the church?
   so you are saying what was meant here is the catholic church and not Gods foundation of believers

 

[geno75]

My daily prayer is for all christians to step out of their named sects and become the called out ones Jesus made us.

Ewes in the pews,
Ewes in the pews,
spend all day fighting over who is right,
while there is so much of the Fathers work to do!

His Son is coming back! When he does, will he honor our laws and beyond-gospel teaching doctrines and dogma we made up?

 

[Fredricks]

It should be added that the Apostle Paul HAD to appeal to tradition because the gospels were being written at the time of his letters.

 

[DianJo]

geno75:

My daily prayer is for all christians to step out of their named sects and become the called out ones Jesus made us.

Ewes in the pews,
Ewes in the pews,
spend all day fighting over who is right,
while there is so much of the Fathers work to do!

His Son is coming back! When he does, will he honor our laws and beyond-gospel teaching doctrines and dogma we made up?

Who’s making up doctrines/dogmas?

 

[JaneFrances]

myfavoritmartin:

As I mentioned before I am but a mere layperson.
I am going to do my best to share how I feel and relate the gospel as I understand it.

1. You disagree with Catholic traditions, which is fine for now, but could you point us to the verse in the Bible which tells us to go by the Bible alone?

The Bible is for tradition where it supports the teachings of the apostles (2 Thess. 2:15) and is consistent with biblical revelation. Yet, it is against tradition when it “transgresses the commands of God” (Matt. 15:3). By Jesus’ own words, tradition is not to transgress or contradict the commands of God. In other words, it should be in harmony with biblical teaching and not oppose it in any way. This is where I struggle with issues such as celibacy and refraining from meats spoken about in 1st timothy 4 1-3.

OH, this is really and truly profitable and such a refreshing change from many of the hit and run threads posted here! Well done, Awful–great questions! Well done, Martin–thank you for responding in kind!

In the spirit of this thread, I think it would be a blessing and benefit to us all to address each question and answer with the respect and attention they deserve.

I would like to do some follow up on all your answers Martin, but as I’m sure many here will have the same inclinations, I will begin with your answer to #1. Hopefully, my further inquiry can lead to better understanding. . .

FIRST, you cite 2 Thess. 2:15. Your interpretation here is that we are only to hold fast to the traditions (apostles’ teachings) which are Biblically consistent. Am I following? My question, then, is how were the early Christians to know which of the apostles teachings (traditions) were Biblically consistent? At the time of the writing and reception of 2 Thess., there was no unified body of New Testament Scripture with which to measure the consistency of certain apostolic traditions.

Also, in the same vein, 2 Thess. does not seem to hold the same qualification for Biblical approval that you are insisting it does. No where does it say: “Hold fast to the traditions you recieved from us, either by word or by letter, which are Biblical.” Instead, the early Church is instructed to stand firm and hold fast to the traditions passed down by their leaders, not the Bible. AND, it begs the question: What exactly are those traditions that the Bible is “for”? How were the people of Thessalonica supposed to know which ones St. Paul was talking about without the Bible to guide them?

SECOND, you cite Matt. 15 as Jesus’ personal witness against tradition that is contrary or not held in Scripture. It is essential here to point out that Jesus is expressly addressing those “traditions” which the scribes and Pharisees practice that are CONTRARY to the Jewish law, especially as set forth in the Commandments (see Ex.). It is important to note here too, that Jesus in NO WAY opposes extra-Biblical tradition. In fact, just a few chapters later, we see Jesus affirming a very extra-Biblial “tradition.” In Matt. 23, Jesus instructs the crowds that the Pharisees “sit on Moses’ seat” to succeed him as teachers. This “seat” of Moses is found no where in Old Testament Scripture. This idea of the Pharisees being Moses’ successors is directly taken from the Mishna (Jewish tradition), not Scripture. So, from this passage, we learn that Scripture is not the final measure of all truth. Scripture is true. It is the holy Word of God. But, it is not the ONLY Word or the only truth.

THIRD, you mention the disciplines of celibacy and abstinence as traditions which are somehow opposed to the Word of God. I think you need to do some more contextual research regarding exactly what St. Paul is referring to here. Celibacy is not being opposed in any way. St. Paul, himself was celibate and encouraged others to follow him in the same way. St. Paul, in this passage, is opposing false asceticism which prohibited marriage in general. Also, St. Paul is not teaching against abstinence here, either. Abstinence from certain foods done as a personal or communal offering is not what he is talking about. He, instead, is talking about the misheld perception among certain Jewish Christians that some foods are “immoral.” The early Christians and Christians today do not abstain because they saw certain foods as immoral, but did it out of love and self-sacrifice.

There is so much here to discuss. . .Let us continue! Come, Holy Spirit.

 

[Fredricks]

, we see Jesus affirming a very extra-Biblial “tradition.” In Matt. 23, Jesus instructs the crowds that the Pharisees “sit on Moses’ seat” to succeed him as teachers. This “seat” of Moses is found no where in Old Testament Scripture. This idea of the Pharisees being Moses’ successors is directly taken from the Mishna (Jewish tradition), not Scripture. So, from this passage, we learn that Scripture is not the final measure of all truth. Scripture is true.

*"The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses.
3
Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice. *

The seat of Moses is where the law was read from in a literal sense. This chair has been discovered in some ruins, although fully recognizing this is a contentious issue.
So they would have to do what it says if we understand this seat literally , it is the law, scripture.

If it is figurative, It sounds like he is simply saying what they say is good(which would seem to contradict much of what he says elsewhere, thus why I see it literally), they are interpreting scritpture correctly, but their actions leave much to be desired.

 

[JaneFrances]

*"The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses.
3
Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice. *

The seat of Moses is where the law was read from in a literal sense. This chair has been discovered in some ruins, although fully recognizing this is a contentious issue.
So they would have to do what it says if we understand this seat literally , it is the law, scripture.

If it is figurative, It sounds like he is simply saying what they say is good(which would seem to contradict much of what he says elsewhere, thus why I see it literally), they are interpreting scritpture correctly, but their actions leave much to be desired.

The point was not to discuss the literal or figurative meaning of “Moses’ seat.” While, obviously, we have a difference in understanding and research, this is not essential to what I was trying to convey.

My point: there is no mention of “Moses’ seat” in Scripture. Jesus cites “Moses’ seat” as a commonly regarded position of authority which has no Old Testament proof text to back it. Thus, “Moses’ seat” (literally or figuratively) is a matter of extra-Biblical tradition.

If the Moses’ seat example is not sufficient to prove this point, then I would point you to another extra-Biblical (at least in your Old Testament) tradition that Jesus obviously adhered to: Hanukah. According to the modern Protestant Biblical texts which exclude Maccabees as Scriptural, Jesus is taking part in an extra-Biblical tradition when we see him celebrating the feast of the Dedication (John 10). There is no Scriptural basis for the Jewish observance of Hanukah apart from Maccabees.

Let us not forget, too, that Matthew (who, among the Evangelists, is especially rooted in Jewish culture and tradition) cites an extra-Biblical prophecy about Jesus Christ as proof of his Messianic mission: “There he settled in a town called Nazareth. In this way what was said through the prophets was fulfilled: ‘He shall be called a Nazorean.’” (Matt. 2:23). This statement about Christ is not Scriptural and can not be identified in any Old Testament passage, yet according to St. Matthew, it should be sufficient proof that Jesus is the Christ.

The point: Scripture is not and has never been the final word on what is Tradition in ancient Judaism or in Christian doctrine.

 

[Fredricks]

JaneFrances:

The point was not to discuss the literal or figurative meaning of “Moses’ seat.” While, obviously, we have a difference in understanding and research, this is not essential to what I was trying to convey.

My point: there is no mention of “Moses’ seat” in Scripture. Jesus cites “Moses’ seat” as a commonly regarded position of authority which has no Old Testament proof text to back it. Thus, “Moses’ seat” (literally or figuratively) is a matter of extra-Biblical tradition.

If the Moses’ seat example is not sufficient to prove this point, then I would point you to another extra-Biblical (at least in your Old Testament) tradition that Jesus obviously adhered to: Hanukah. According to the modern Protestant Biblical texts which exclude Maccabees as Scriptural, Jesus is taking part in an extra-Biblical tradition when we see him celebrating the feast of the Dedication (John 10). There is no Scriptural basis for the Jewish observance of Hanukah apart from Maccabees.

Let us not forget, too, that Matthew (who, among the Evangelists, is especially rooted in Jewish culture and tradition) cites an extra-Biblical prophecy about Jesus Christ as proof of his Messianic mission: “There he settled in a town called Nazareth. In this way what was said through the prophets was fulfilled: ‘He shall be called a Nazorean.’” (Matt. 2:23). This statement about Christ is not Scriptural and can not be identified in any Old Testament passage, yet according to St. Matthew, it should be sufficient proof that Jesus is the Christ.

The point: Scripture is not and has never been the final word on what is Tradition in ancient Judaism or in Christian doctrine.

My familiarity with Judaism would preclude me from ever contending that they do not rely on tradition, I have read the Talmud and understand first hand the tradition of that relgion. That point as it relates to Judaism is understood.

Our reaction though against any form of tradition is based upon what we perceive as tradition run amuck. For Christians such as I, and I suspect others on this forum, it is not that we outright reject all extrabiblical traditions. It boils down to what we consider truth. The word of God(Bible) or The word of God(Bible), Sacred Tradition, the Pope, and the Magisterium.

 

[JaneFrances]

Fredricks:

My familiarity with Judaism would preclude me from ever contending that they do not rely on tradition, I have read the Talmud and understand first hand the tradition of that relgion. That point as it relates to Judaism is understood.

Our reaction though against any form of tradition is based upon what we perceive as tradition run amuck. For Christians such as I, and I suspect others on this forum, it is not that we outright reject all extrabiblical traditions. It boils down to what we consider truth. The word of God(Bible) or The word of God(Bible), Sacred Tradition, the Pope, and the Magisterium.

I appreciate your reaction to “tradition run amuck.” It should be of great concern to all Christians and has been of utmost concern to the Church since the earliest days of Christianity. This is precisely why we have texts such as the Didache and other extra-Scriptural writings of the early Church Fathers which were intentionally provided for our instruction regarding Christian Tradition.

I also appreciate your point that you do not “outright reject all extrabiblical traditions.” This is important because I would propose that there are many others, here and elsewhere, who would not be as forthcoming in this admission. To ignore the place of Tradition is to ignore historical Christianity.

Now, on the meat. . .“It boils down to what we consider truth.” YES!!! This is possibly the most important point in question!

You contend (please correct me if I am misunderstanding): that all truth is revealed in the “Word of God(Bible),” while Catholics accept as truth the “Word of God(Bible), Sacred Tradition, the Pope, the Magisterium.”

I think our main point of contention, then, from your explanation is: what is the Word of God?

You say: Bible.

The Church, however, has a much broader, Scriptural perspective of what comprises the Word of God.

Scripturally speaking, the Word of God is not the Bible alone.

“In the beginning was the Word: the Word was in God’s presence, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1).

According to Scripture, the written texts of the Old Testament and the New Testament are not exclusively the Word of God. The Word is God, Himself. He, in His sovereign and providential wisdom, has chosen to reveal Himself to us in many ways. Jesus Christ is the Word made Flesh. Scriptures reveal to us the inspired Word of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit. Sacred Tradition reveals to us the Word as it has been entrusted by the Spirit to the apostles and their successors, in the interest of faithfully preserving, expounding, speading, and preaching the truth.

But, it must be pointed out that while the Pope and the Magisterium are important and essential means of giving authentic interpretation of the Word of God, they are not the Word of God. They are its servants (see CCC 81-87). Your assertion that the Church believes the Pope and the Magisterium to BE the Word of God is incorrect.

So, then, the question is turned to you: How do you discern what is and what is not the Word? What are your “proofs”? How do you reconcile your Word of God=Bible Alone perception with what is specifically taught in Scripture and throughout historical Christianity?

This is such a good and important discussion. Thank you.

 

[JaneFrances]

Fredricks:

It should be added that the Apostle Paul HAD to appeal to tradition because the gospels were being written at the time of his letters.

I missed this before. . .

Are you meaning that St. Paul only intended “tradition” to be necessary and authoritative so long as there were no written gospels? This, then, begs the question: How was the early Church to know that once the gospels had been written that an appeal to tradition was no longer necessary?

 

[awfulthings9]

myfavoritmartin:

1. In the first century, there were dozens to hundreds of “epistles” and “gospels” floating around. If we go by the Bible alone, where does the Bible tell us which 27 were supposed to be included?
   I follow only those scriptures inspired by the holy spirit

How do you know which those are? How do you know the 27 that the early Christians picked were correct? That’s the point of this question.

myfavoritmartin:

It is my understanding that these letters epistles and gospels were sent to diffrent churches for example while paul was in jail he sent of many of his works.To be used as guidance in preaching the gospel(good news) prior to being assembled in the 3rd century by the church.

So some churches got by with only a few letters and gospels, only part of the written word? Does that mean that some churches were only partially in the truth? Would Christ have designed a Church like that?

myfavoritmartin:

Matthew 28:19 works for me.

The definition of the Trinity that Protestants and Catholics accept is 3 persons in one nature. Matthew 28:19 doesn’t say that. Is there another you had in mind?

myfavoritmartin:

so you are saying what was meant here is the catholic church and not Gods foundation of believers

No. Please don’t put words in my text that weren’t there. I am saying that Scripture tells us that Scripture isn’t supposed to be the pillar and foundation for truth, but a teaching Church. Incidentally, if the “foundation of believers” is the pillar and foundation, then how does one account for tens of thousands of Christian groups all claiming the truth? Either the foundation of believers isn’t reliable, which makes the verse in question in error, or it must refer to some other defintion of “church”. Scripture makes clear that Christ established a visible Church, not just a community of believers.

 

[Fredricks]

You contend (please correct me if I am misunderstanding): that all truth is revealed in the “Word of God(Bible),” while Catholics accept as truth the “Word of God(Bible), Sacred Tradition, the Pope, the Magisterium.”

Yes

I think our main point of contention, then, from your explanation is: what is the Word of God?

You say: Bible.

yes

The Church, however, has a much broader, Scriptural perspective of what comprises the Word of God.

Scripturally speaking, the Word of God is not the Bible alone.

“In the beginning was the Word: the Word was in God’s presence, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1).

According to Scripture, the written texts of the Old Testament and the New Testament are not exclusively the Word of God.

Perhaps I should have used scripture because I am not sure we want to get hung up on John 1.1. that is not what I intended

The Word is God, Himself. He, in His sovereign and providential wisdom, has chosen to reveal Himself to us in many ways. Jesus Christ is the Word made Flesh. Scriptures reveal to us the inspired Word of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit. Sacred Tradition reveals to us the Word as it has been entrusted by the Spirit to the apostles and their successors, in the interest of faithfully preserving, expounding, speading, and preaching the truth.

The term “Sacred Tradition” is not to be found in the Bible and appealing to it, while useful to Catholicism or Orthodoxy, it may be unproductive for this thread.

But, it must be pointed out that while the Pope and the Magisterium are important and essential means of giving authentic interpretation of the Word of God, they are not the Word of God. They are its servants (see CCC 81-87). Your assertion that the Church believes the Pope and the Magisterium to BE the Word of God is incorrect.

I do think they are the Word of God

So, then, the question is turned to you: How do you discern what is and what is not the Word? What are your “proofs”? How do you reconcile your Word of God=Bible Alone perception with what is specifically taught in Scripture and throughout historical Christianity?

This could get very long. Why dont you show me the Magisterium and the Pope in the Bible? Peter was not even a bishop when Matthew 16:18 occured. Where in scripture do we find that Peter(although I disagree, for the sake of argument) is able to hand of “the keys” to a specific person?
I imagine you are familiar with every verse I would use but I say that not minding at all if you would like me to include them.

This is such a good and important discussion. Thank you.

Thank you as well.

 

[Fredricks]

JaneFrances:

I missed this before. . .

Are you meaning that St. Paul only intended “tradition” to be necessary and authoritative so long as there were no written gospels? This, then, begs the question: How was the early Church to know that once the gospels had been written that an appeal to tradition was no longer necessary?

I am saying:

that Paul COULD not have appealed to a written gospel if that were not written yet.

that Paul was writing a letter.

that the early church collected these letters.

the early church throughout the world put together, with some differences, a general set of books they considered inspired.

I consider the words of these men to be authoratative by that which put them together, the Holy Spirit, as promised in scripture.

 

[Fredricks]

awfulthings9:

How do you know which those are? How do you know the 27 that the early Christians picked were correct? That’s the point of this question.

So some churches got by with only a few letters and gospels, only part of the written word? Does that mean that some churches were only partially in the truth? Would Christ have designed a Church like that?

The definition of the Trinity that Protestants and Catholics accept is 3 persons in one nature. Matthew 28:19 doesn’t say that. Is there another you had in mind?

No. Please don’t put words in my text that weren’t there. I am saying that Scripture tells us that Scripture isn’t supposed to be the pillar and foundation for truth, but a teaching Church. Incidentally, if the “foundation of believers” is the pillar and foundation, then how does one account for tens of thousands of Christian groups all claiming the truth? Either the foundation of believers isn’t reliable, which makes the verse in question in error, or it must refer to some other defintion of “church”. Scripture makes clear that Christ established a visible Church, not just a community of believers.

Why do you capitalize your “C”. Is that scriptural?

 

[thistle]

www.scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html
www.scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html
www.scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html
www.scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html
www.scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html

 

[Aaron_I]

7. Lastly, if God is the truth, is the pillar and foundation of the truth Scripture? If so, why does 1 Tim. 3:15 tell us it is the church?
so you are saying what was meant here is the catholic church and not Gods foundation of believers

Yes, that’s what we’re saying. Notice that it follows immediately after the guidelines for bishops and deacons.

(1 Corinthians 12:27-30) “Now you together are Christ’s body; but each of you is a different part of it. In the Church, God has given the first place to apostles, the second to prophets, the third to teachers; after them, miracles, and after them the gift of healing; helpers, good leaders, those with many languages. Are all of them apostles, or all of them prophets, or all of them teachers? Do all speak strange languages, and all interpret them?”

Notice that the apostolic office is not only a part of the Church, but it holds the highest position. Where is the apostolic office found today if not in the Catholic Church?

 

[JaneFrances]

Fredricks:

1.Perhaps I should have used scripture because I am not sure we want to get hung up on John 1.1. that is not what I intended

2.The term “Sacred Tradition” is not to be found in the Bible and appealing to it, while useful to Catholicism or Orthodoxy, it may be unproductive for this thread.

1. I do think they are the Word of God
2. This could get very long. Why dont you show me the Magisterium and the Pope in the Bible? Peter was not even a bishop when Matthew 16:18 occured. Where in scripture do we find that Peter(although I disagree, for the sake of argument) is able to hand of “the keys” to a specific person?
   I imagine you are familiar with every verse I would use but I say that not minding at all if you would like me to include them.

1. Yes, I would think that if Holy Scripture is your only source for truth, then it woud be ultimately prudent for you to use whatever Scripture you can find to prove your position. I do not intend, myself, do get “hung up” on John 1:1 or any other passage, for that matter. My point was simply to prove that there is no Scriptural basis for your doctrine of God’s Word=Bible Only. Could you please provide the Scripture that you use as the proof for your belief?
2. The term “Sacred Tradition” is indeed not found in Scripture. Yet we see in Scripture (especially in 2 Thess. 2:15 and 3:6, for example) that there are certain “traditions” which are binding for Christians regardless of their express citation in Holy Scripture.

It is important to revisit the point, however, that neither is the term “Trinity” found in Scripture. However, I think you would be hard pressed to find a Christian who opposes the term or theology of the Trinity despite its lack of expressly Biblical explanation and terminology.

And I would propose that appealing to Tradition is not only productive to this particular thread, but ESSENTIAL. This line of questioning is precisely to find out the basis for the Protestant tradition of relying on the Bible alone for truth.

1. I’m confused by your response: “I do believe they are the Word of God” in reference to my explanation of the function of the Pope and the Magisterium. Could you please clarify? I am certain you do not mean that you believe the Pope and the Magisterium to be the Word of God. . .What exactly did you mean by your response?
2. I appreciate your need for Biblical support for the Pope and the Magisterium. As you appeal to the Bible alone for proof of truth, I understand your concern about any teaching that is not expressly taught or metioned specifically in Scripture.

With that in mind, I would first ask you–so that we don’t get completely off track by discussing individual aspects of Tradition–what is your Biblical support for your reliance on the Bible alone for truth?

And, as for the issue of Peter’s episcopacy and the “the keys,” I think starting a separate thread on that topic (or exploring the search function for previous discussions) would be most respectful so that we do not derail this particular thread.

The questions still remain: What is your Scriptural basis for your Bible alone belief?