Sola Scriptura is not a theologically tenable position

What does . . . have to do with our debate? Absolutely everything. Throughout the NT, the one overwhelming theme that recurs again and again and again is admonishment for following the letter of the law when the letter goes against the Spirit of the law. I feel you are doing a similar thing here as well with your argument. Jesus openly defies the OT law of the Sabbath by healing a man, and even compels the man to “break the Sabbath” as well. One of the primary goals of Jesus’ ministry was to show how the Pharisees had become drunk on words and laws and commandments while ignoring the realities in front of them. They had turned God from a living reality with whom they had a Covenant into a concept to be found only through adhering to a block of text. Initially, I wrote a point-by-point rebuttal to every usage of the quotations you cited, but I then realized that, not only was this unnecessary, but I also had no room left for anything else, and this is the last round of the debate! So allow me to focus on the only one which potentially carries any weight for the meaning you wish to convey, since it is the only one that speaks of Scripture to the exclusion of all else. (1 Cor 4:6) To show that I do not even need to rely solely on Orthodox commentators, let's look at what John Calvin said about this particular passage: The clause above what is written may be explained in two ways — either as referring to Paul’s writings, or to the proofs from Scripture which he has brought forward. As this, however, is a matter of small moment, my readers may be left at liberty to take whichever they may prefer.[1] It is interesting, don't you think, that the only passage you cited which talks about Scripture to the exclusion of other things is a "matter of small moment" to Calvin. In either case, the two options which he gives here do not apply to every single canonical writing in any sense, but to specific writings and for specific reasons – and Calvin never used this passage as a defense for sola Scriptura. It is also very important to keep in mind that the Jewish Canon wasstill open during the time of Jesus. We are not talking about a closed canon here. St. John Chrysostom infact taught that the reference to Scripture here specifically referred to one particular section of Matthew, which makes a lot of sense considering the context of the passage: But what is the meaning of, not to be wise above what is written? It is written, "Why do you behold the mote that is in your brothers's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in your own eye? and Judge not, that you be not judged." For if we are one and are mutually bound together, it behooves us not to rise up against one another. For "he that humbles himself shall be exalted", says he. And Matthew 20:26-27; Mark 10:43; not verbatim "He that will be first of all, let him be the servant of all". These are the things which are written.[2] Indeed, I would use many of the same quotations that you did to refute sola Scriptura, which shines a light directly on the real problem here, which is translation. If all that is needed for salvation is contained in these texts, then surely accurate translation and hermeneutics becomes a top priority. Translation, hermeneutics and exegesis require real people, not rules; not just words, and especially not words after they have been translated into another language and now come with all the new baggage of that language, both culturally and etymologically. ----------- It is interesting that you say that you “completely disagree” with the statement “Christianity is the source of Holy Scriptures, not vice versa”, and then go on to say: “The apostles taught the early churches to reject any teaching that is contrary to what they taught. This was easier for the churches that were directly under the apostles, they had direct contact with source of these teachings. But what about the second generation and the ones after, when the apostles were long gone? They held on to written gospels and the apostles letters”. This is a direct contradiction. Christianity was, right from the beginning, an oral tradition. As far as we know, Jesus never wrote anything down (with the exception of John 8:6 when he wrote on the ground). Wouldn’t you think that if all of our hope for salvation was going to come through a book that Jesus would have wrote it himself? After all, he had 30 years before his ministry began to do it. The Gospels and the NT are all about Christ’s salvific work, period. They do not go out of their way to tell us anything which is superfluous to this, only acknowledging briefly and not explicitly those other things that would have been obvious to the early Church through the Apostolic oral teachings. The reason these particular writings became canonized is because they are all directly relevant to our Christology. You may also notice that every single one of the early heresies are all Christological in nature. -------- Now, a brief word to your objection to Tradition. The Greek word for tradition is paradosis. This word is translated as two different words in the most popular English translations (including the NIV) for no reason except a Protestant bias against Holy Tradition. When it is referred to in a negative sense (Mat 15, Mark 7, Col 2:8) it is translated as “tradition”, but when it is referred to in a positive sense (2 Th 2:15, 2 Th 3:6, 1 Cr 11:2) it is translated as “teaching” or “ordinance”. A very brief definition of Holy Tradition from the Orthodox perspective: "The pure notion of Tradition can be defined by saying that it is the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church, communicating to each member of the Body of Christ the faculty of hearing, of receiving, of knowing the Truth in the Light which belongs to it, and not according to the natural light of human reason. This is true gnosis, owed to an action of the divine Light, the unique Tradition, independent of all “philosophy”, independent of all that lives 'according to human tradition according to the elemental spirits of the universe and not according to Christ.' " – Vladimir Lossky [3] Unfortunately, I am out of space, so let me conclude with a pertinent quote: "So long as we see the Word of God take flesh in the letter of holy writings in a variety of figures, we have not yet spiritually seen the incorporeal and simple and singular and only Father as in the incorporeal and simple and singular and only Son. As the Scripture says, 'The one who has seen Me has seen the Father' (Jn 14.9), and also, 'I am in the Father and the Father is in Me' (Jn 14.10). It is, therefore, very necessary for a deep knowledge that we first study the veils of the statements regarding the Word and so behold with the naked mind the pure Word as He exists in Himself, who clearly shows the Father in Himself, as far as it is possible for men to grasp. Thus it is necessary that the one who seeks after God in a religious way never holds fast to the letter lest he mistakenly understand things said about God for God Himself. In this case we unwisely are satisfied with the words of Scripture in the place of the Word, and the Word slips out of the mind while we thought by holding onto this garment we could possess the incorporeal Word. In a similar way did the Egyptian woman lay hold not of Joseph but of his clothing, and the men of old who remained permanently in the beauty of visible things and mistakenly worshipped the creature instead of the Creator.”- Saint Maximus the Confessor [1] http://www.sacred-texts.com... [2] http://www.newadvent.org... [3] http://www.scribd.com...