:To take things logically, let us agree first of all that the Bible is
:infallible in what it teaches--to re-arrange the words a little, that
:which is taught by the Scriptures is infallible.  Now then, you have
:already indicated that Protestants such as yourself and Martin Luther
:do not claim to have an infallible understanding of the Scriptures.

But  we can have an understanding of the infallible Scriptures. So the
situation is not at all hopeless. Apart from that, as you admitted, no
single Father is believed to utter dogmatic verdicts on the meaning of
one passage or another. So the only difference between your scriptural
interpretation  and  mine  is in the amount of the written material at
our  disposal. But quantity doesn't necessarily guarantee quality, for
there  have  been  many  misled  Fathers  over  the centuries who were
bullied  into the vile systems of Papacy, "Purgatory", the "Filioque",
etc.

:Thus, we should also be able to agree that human understanding of the
:Word is fallible (at least among fallible humans).

Among  them  the  understanding of Church fathers, Luther, Calvin, and
me. No difference altogether. The mere proximity to the Apostles' time
doesn't  grant  infallibility  to  any  of the Fathers. You (and other
traditionalists)  assume  that they, on account of being orally taught
by   the   Apostles,  have  preserved  Apostolic  teaching  whole  and
unimpaired.  Yet  among  them  were the first Montanists (Tertullian),
Marcionites,   Encratites   (Tatian),  Chiliasts  (Justin,  Irenaeus),
schismatics    (Hippolytus,   Novatian),   Devil-redeemers   (Origen),
anti-Paedobaptists (Tertullian), Papalists (Victor, and the council of
Sardica),  purgatorians  (Cyprian, Gregory of Nyssa), iconoclasts (the
council  of  Elvira),  etc. From that period originated those numerous
fabricated "gospels", "acts" and "revelations", rejecting which wasn't
always  easy  (see the glorious career of the Mariac "Protoevangelium"
or the Ebionitish Pseudo-Clementine romance).

You  are  warranted,  of  course,  to  refer to the Fathers as ortodox
witnesses,  but then, aren't I also justified in pointing out to their
errors?  Certainly  yes. You tried to defend your cause by edging back
to  your  (much  later)  ecclesiastical  consensus in interpreting the
particular  cases  where  I  found many Fathers in error. But thus you
utterly  failed  in  your attempt to bring back your interpretation to
the  most  ancient  Fathers,  and  this  way  prove its antiquity. The
conclusion,  therefore,  is  painfully evident: you seek precedents to
your extra-biblical beliefs in the writings of the Fathers, but due to
the  the  lack  of unanimity therein, you have to select and interpret
them according to your (quite easily fathomable) interests.

:It follows, therefore, that the infallible teaching of the Scriptures
:and the fallible human understanding of the Scriptures are two separate
:things.

Just  as  speaking and hearing are different things. But just as faith
comes  from  hearing,  and  hearing by the Word of God, it can be said
that  faith comes by understanding, and understanding through the Word
of  God,  and all the above things have to take place through the Holy
Spirit, whose work is according to the Word of God.

So  even if these things are different, one cannot separate them (that
is,  tear them apart) so gratuitously as you did. To remove the ground
on  which  our  understanding  rests,  that  is,  the  very  thing  to
understand,  is nonsensical, even on a grammatical level. "Understand"
is  a transitive verb - why throw away the object? Because one of them
is  infallible,  and  the other is not? Let you then deprive me of the
right  to  look at things, for I wear eyeglasses, being short-sighted.
As for my decision, I went to a doctor who prescribed me -2.5 dioptric
lenses.  And  he didn't have a certificate that his sight is so and so
acute - indeed, I have met ophthalmologists with spectacles, too. Then
why  do  you still insist that I accepted the particular views of this
or  that  denomination  on  the  grounds  that  they  claim  to be the
authority?

I,  however  boldly  it  may  sound,  have  eyesight. Sometimes it may
deceive  me  as for the minute details of some distant object - then I
apply  the  correct  means  - spectacles, a telescope etc. And if even
they don't help then I conclude that the object is not intended for me
to see it - to put it otherwise, it is a divine mystery. I will keenly
admit  that  I'll  never  be  able  to exploit the profundity of God's
predestination  fully. Neither will I proclaim rashly that the Trinity
is not a mystery for me any longer; and so on.

 I  am  convinced  that  you  don't  have  in  mind  these, indeed very
 profound,  things  when  you  try  to  bully  me  into  accepting your
 ecclesiastical traditions but rather those ones which Calvin described
 as   "old-womanish   gestures"  and  "Judaistic  regulations":  icons,
 Mariology,  auricular  confession,  the  Mass; and if you were a Roman
 Catholic:  the  so-called purgatory, the papal primacy and the alleged
 treasury  of  the Church. These are quite secondary doctrines compared
 to the above ones, on which we do agree.

And  when  certain  presumptuous  men  come  around  to sweep aside my
(albeit  erroneous)  conjectures with the hollow pretext that "You are
fallible",  I  can't  help but ask them if they themselves don't apply
the  same  method  of  understanding, reasoning and theologizing, viz.
gathering  whatever  information  they  can,  then pondering them with
their  mental faculties, and finally come to a (temporary) conclusion.
Later further information may emerge, so the result is not necessarily
eternal.  But, hopefully, it is convergent, namely, towards the mature
adulthood  in  Christ. For me, the primary piece of information is the
Bible,  and it will remain that until I become a traditionalist, which
is not likely soon.

:Regardless of how much or how little agreement there is between the two,
:they are two separate things.  The term "sola," however, refers
:to only one.

Well, if you managed to separate these two things, look at the result.
Scripture  without our understanding - it is very majestic an idea but
quite unfruitful to us. Understanding without anything to understand -
it is a very barren  idea.  Your  method  of disproving Sola Scriptura
assails  the normal course of human thinking - we get information, and
make  our  judgment  on  this  basis.  We hear the Word of God, and we
respond. I really don't want to bring up here the more important side,
that is, God  leading us to respond, etc.  We do what we are commanded
to  do:  seek God, listen to Him, obey Him. Sola Scriptura doesn't say
that  God speaks and we close our ears. Neither that God doesn't speak
and we interpret our own thoughts in the midst of the vast blue nihil.

:If you read the Bible, but do not understand anything of what you are
:reading-- for example, if you are reading a translation in a language
:you know nothing about-- if you read the Bible and have no understanding
:of it, then you have nothing upon which you can rely.  Reading
:without understanding is no different, practically speaking, than not
:reading at all.

Mark, I indeed didn't expect this preposterous kind of pseudo-argument
of  you. What on earth, if not the written Law, caused the king Josiah
to  seek  God  the  right  way, in a totally rotten system of religion
which,  in  turn,  the  priests  of  the idols loudly proclaimed to be
deeply  rooted  in  the  tradition  of  the  previous  kings, Amon and
Manasseh? Of what use was then the appointed clergy?

Understanding,  the  same way now as it was then, is engendered by the
Bible   speaking  in  intelligible,  translateable  language.  Using a
translation  is  not shameful at all: the apostles also resorted to it
when  they  made  quotations to non-Jews. Sometimes they made a direct
translation - but they mostly used the Septuagint.

But  your  attempts fail utterly: you try to equate non-traditionalist
Bible-reading  with  lack  of reading. I stoutly refuse to accept this
simile, for the advocates of several traditionalist denominations have
long ago abrogated it as a specimen of rigid and one-sided argument.

:If you read the Bible *with* understanding, however, you no longer
:have sola Scriptura, because the teaching of the Scriptures and your
:understanding of the Scriptures are two separate things.

In your gratuitous and sophisticated philosophical framework. In mine,
they   may   be  distinguishable  but  never  detachable.  (This  is a
well-known  ecclesiastical  formula frequently applied to the divinity
and  humanity  of  Christ;  and as a parallel, quite fitting our case,
too.)

Further,  our  understanding  depends  on,  is  carried out by, and is
shaped  by  the  thing  we  have  to  understand. This dependence is a
dynamic  relationship  -  it  can  improve,  and alas, dwindle. We can
become  mature  and  can  fall  back  into  spiritual  childhood. Sola
Scriptura doesn't say "Only the Scripture exists" or "All what we have
to  do  is  to  print  Bibles".  Writing  and  reading are co-existing
counterparts, just as speaking and hearing.

Nay,  when you say that "The Church teaches the truth", even you don't
imply  by  it  that  hearing  is  unnecessary. Yet if you are right in
building  an  iron  curtain  between  Scripture  (meaning:  Writ)  and
understanding,  saying that they are entirely separate then I can with
the  same  right assert that the teaching of your denomination and its
understanding by "lay" believers are utterly separate things.

Surely,   you   do   reject  {the  accusations  directed  against  the
traditionalist   viewpoint  in  the  manner  of  "for the tradition is
unwritten,  one  cannot  verify by hard evidence whether it is true or
false"}. You usually refer to the writings of the Fathers as the basis
of  true  interpretation.  But  finally,  when  I  point  out  to many
purgatorian   Fathers,  you,  being  unable  to  show  me  one  single
anti-purgatorian   one,  say  that  what  I  quote  is  not  apostolic
tradition.  Which  is  a  virtual  retreat,  in  the  form  of vicious
circle.

So my implicit accusations in the above manner, frequently employed in
my  previous  letters,  seem  to  be  well-founded. Your notion of the
tradition   proved   to   be   resting   ultimately  on  your  private
interpretation  of the patristic corpus. I mean by it that you venture
to  openly  reject  many real, living, and respectable Church Fathers'
explicit  testimonies  as being wholly out of the tradition, and still
accuse  us  of  private  interpretation  of the Scripture, whereas we,
basically  agreeing  with  you on which OT passages were superceded by
the  NT  and  don't apply to us literally, strive to maintain that the
written  Bible  is the Word of God, and none of its passages should be
despised  as  ones of merely human origin. We, looking at the Creation
story,  even if we happen to be evolutionists, say that it is the Word
of  God,  however,  adjusted  to human understanding. We, doubting the
geological   reality   of  the  Deluge,  still  maintain  that  it  is
instructive  to  meditate  on  it eg. from a viewpoint of baptism. We,
denying  that  the  Christians  have  to  keep  the  Sabbath, however,
proclaim that it is useful to set a day apart to divine service.

You,  in  turn,  tread under foot poor Gregory of Nyssa et al. because
they  dare  maintain  the existence of a place which you think to be a
Roman  invention  instituted for the sake of filthy earthly lucre, but
you  do  so  without  any other Fathers' affirmative testimony on your
side.

Now,  who  interprets the material at his disposal more privately: you
or me? I at least >claim< to have a Scriptural reason to disbelieve in
the  necessity  of circumcision for us now, while you don't even >try<
to  bring up any other reason from the tradition for rejecting Gregory
et  al. than the dim argument that "No single father is the channel of
the  Apostolic  Tradition".  But  this  defense  of  yours  was thrice
refuted:   >first<,  when  I  sent  you  tons  of  explicit  patristic
testimonies  in  favour of the so-called purgatory; >second<, when you
sent  me none to the effect of the opposite, >third<, when you refused
to accept the phoenix as apostolic tradition on account of Clement not
having  expressly  said that what he wrote was apostolic tradition.

By  resorting  to this latter subterfuge you gave away your conviction
that  even  if  all  Fathers  roared  all  day  long  that "There is a
purgatory",  you  wouldn't  be  bound  by  your  understanding  of the
tradition  to  accept it, for they forgot to add: "...and we learnt it
from  the  Apostles". Thus, you needn't have said "No single Father is
the  channel"  but rather "I am the one to tell you what to believe to
be  Apostolic  Tradition, and I am superior to the patristic writings:
if  they  contradict  my  solemn  declaration  then  they err". A very
papistical  sentence,  although  it's  you  who  keeps  accusing  Sola
Scriptura adherents of papistical aspirations.

                    A bit of digression:

 The  pope,  however,  goes  on, taking the only viable path from this
 standpoint,  answering  indignantly to the fierce reproofs that "only
 those of my oracles are to be considered solemn which I declare to be
 solemn".  The  snag in this kind of self-defense is that still no one
 knows if the decree in which he declared a previous decree solemn, is
 solemn  or not. Hence the striking rarity of "ex cathedra statements"
 in  the  RCC. They don't want to become laughed out, so they leave it
 to  the future to declare their particular statement infallible. Sola
 Scriptura  crowds,  while holding to a similar principle, with "true"
 instead  of  "infallible",  are  at  pains clarifying that they don't
 demand  power  in  the  present,  and  that they accept correction by
 contemporaries  -  this  the pope will never tolerate on any account.
 Sapienti sat.

 You know about heretical popes, don't you? The present pope says that
 their  acceptance  of the Creed of Sirmium (Liberius), or the refusal
 to  condemn  whom  the Council condemned (Vigilius) or endorsement of
 Monotheletism  (Honorius)  or the profession that the beatific vision
 will  wait  until the final judgment (John XXII) weren't "ex cathedra
 statements".  He  also  refuses to acknowledge the whole Unam Sanctam
 (including  the  fierce  damnation  of the "Greeks or others") as "de
 fide",  for  obvious  ecumenical  reasons.  Of  course,  he prudently
 desists  from  declaring  this  refusal  of his to be "ex cathedra" -
 perhaps  at  one time or another a new Constantine will arise, and in
 his  profitable presence (Rev 17) the temporal dishonour which befell
 Boniface,  the  Black  Monster, can be cured without the detriment of
 the fame of the papal see, and the promising theory of the Two Swords
 can  be  revived in order to annul the "enemies of the religion" (Rev
 13:11-18).   Oh,   this  sounds  like  a  masochistically  end-times-
 obsessed hyper-Protestant pamphlet. So I prefer the explanation which
 my  compatriot, the famous RC apologist Dr. Stanley Jaki gave away in
 his   article   in   >Fidelity<,  1986,  titled  "Is  Galilei  To  Be
 Rehabilitated?":

   "Marxists wanted that the Church, apart from acknowledging facts,
   declared herself irrehabilitable. But this she will never do.

 This  was  written  before the actual rehabilitation in 1992, and Dr.
 Jaki  left  it  to the pope to decide. However, his article suggested
 that  such a decision was completely unnecessary - at least the title
 allows  us  to conclude so. So he depicted the critics as "Marxists",
 and their insistence on the rehabilitating announcement as "declaring
 the Church irrehabilitable".

 Thus he wanted that the Roman Catholic Church preserved the veneer of
 prevailing  church,  ecclesia triumphans, as if every act of humility
 towards  the memory of those once persecuted by her, necessarily went
 along  with the denial of the Church's validity. Just as now many RCs
 put  the  monstrous Unam Sanctam and Exsurge Domine on web pages like
 "Faithful  Catholics",  and "Reforming the reform", believing that it
 is  a shame on Christ if the verdict "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" is
 stretched  ecumenically  to  mean  that >Orthodox, Protestants, Jews,
 Muslims,  Buddhists,  pagans  and  atheists are "in the Church" (thus
 they  can  aspire  to  salvation)  by  imperfect  communion  which is
 engendered  by  their  unspoken  implicit  desire  to  belong to her,
 namely, by having the same liturgies, Scripture, Abraham, monotheism,
 desire  for  enlightenment, unknown god, and moral law respectively<.
 They  moan  at the new Mass in the "vernacular", and quote against it
 the  Trent  decree  which  forbade  it.  They  (eg. Dr. Stanley Jaki)
 despise  the  new RC biographies of Luther, and revert to the old and
 warped  cavils  of  Grisar. These are who confine the Church to their
 denomination. Just like those in Jer 18:18 who triumphantly roared:

 "Come, and let us devise devices against Jeremiah; for the law shall
 :not perish from the priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor the word
 "from the prophet.

:To the extent that Sola Scriptura eliminates or invalidates anything
:beyond what is taught by the Bible, it eliminates fallible human
:understanding of the Bible.

Sola Scriptura never "eliminates" the understanding of Scripture. If I
say  that  "only  the  Scripture  is  pure divine truth" I by no means
assert that everything outside it is mere pagan falsehood. Instead, by
Sola  Scriptura  we  admit  that  the Scripture improves, corrects, or
condemns  our  understanding,  depending  on  our  faithfulness in the
understanding, and the openness of our heart.

:But if fallible human understanding is eliminated, then we have nothing.
:On the other hand, if Sola Scripture allows things, like human
:understanding, that are "extra-scriptural," then in what sense is it
:"Sola?"

Our  understanding  isn't  "eliminated". Sola Scriptura isn't the very
method  which  puts the Bible on a shelf and allows never to read it -
your  scholastic,  philosophical,  and rather technical suggestions to
"separate" them would do this, indeed. But we are thinking, reasoning,
understanding creatures - we can't live without understanding.

To  separate  our  mental  faculties  from  the  Bible  would be sheer
apostasy,  for  then we would wilfully become deaf to God's Word. Sola
Scriptura  doesn't  endorse  apostasy.  It  just  recognizes the light
shining  forth  from  Scripture, which even traditionalists recognize.
Alas,  some people are wont to attribute the splendour of Scripture to
the  people  who read, distribute, and explain it - to church fathers,
doctors,  etc.  But  it  is  never  the  case.  God  has  spoken - the
expounders can only call our attention to it. They don't enlighten the
light.

                           Digression:

 One  of  my  greatest disappointments of my Charismatic assembly came
 about  when  I  realized  that the loud assertions widely proclaimed,
 namely "the Holy Spirit will enlighten the Word of God in your heart"
 or  "The  Holy  Spirit  will  stir  up the calm water of the Logos to
 turn  it  into  Rhema"  are  unbiblical.  This speech was employed to
 support  private  interpretation,  for  it  depicted  the  Bible as a
 resting,   almost   dead  lake  of  Bethesda,  from  which  only  the
 "Spirit-quickened" parts are of use for us in a given situation.

 This  teaching  deprived  the Holy Spirit of His promised commission,
 namely,  of  reminding  us  of  the  Word  of God, and quickening our
 slothful  understanding to truth. Our teachers replaced the growth of
 understanding  the  Word  in  us  (which  is  recommended)  with  the
 appearance   of   some  Scriptural  verses  in  our  mind  (which  is
 insufficient).

 For  those who seek God sincerely, the only choice which is even more
 grievous  than  the above error is the assertion that the Word of God
 is inherently obscure, dangerous, misleading, and inconsistent.

 This  approach  naturally  begs  for  a living, authoritative body of
 hierarchic  society,  in  which  the truth resides by definition. But
 it  can  hardly be imagined that a body which is practically admitted
 not  to  be guarded against some errors, can infallibly interpret the
 inerrant Scriptures. Traditionalist approach, in fact, manages to put
 the  Bible  aside  as obscure literature, so that the tyranny of some
 self-appointed  lawgivers  be  unimpaired.  However, it can only take
 place  at  the  expense  of truth, viz. that they accept these Solons
 to authentically represent the Church, with whom she stands and falls
 together.  But then they eventually end up having a Church over which
 the  gates  of  hell happened to have prevailed. When? I have already
 addressed  this question in answer to your sarcastic inquiry, namely,
 writing in my last, unanswered letter about the ludicrous, nefarious,
 impious and frivolous invention of the falsely so-called purgatory,

 (whereas  it  is  nothing  but a means of burying the cross of Christ,
 exploiting  the  people  of God for sordid lucrative gain, and making
 (Christ  worse  than  an ox, alleging that His sacrifice cannot purify
 the  comers  but  an  additional  place  is required, where the "poor
 (souls" are sprinkled with the "blood of the martyrs", and to them the
 pope  can apply as he wills the "excess righteousness of the saints",
 (and the  "accumulated merits of the Blessed Virgin and the Apostles",
 also  known  as  the  "treasury  of  the  Church",  entrusted  to the
 ("infallible" and "supreme" Roman "Pontiff", "vicar" of Christ, in the
 person of the  blessed Peter,  "Head" of the Church,  "Prince" of the
 (Apostles.

 trying to dare you into asserting your point vigorously, but apparently
 in vain, that:

 `All  Christians believed it [the so-called purgatory], but just these
 `fathers thought it necessary to express this consistent common belief
 `in  writing.  And you still deny that "there is a purgatory", despite
 `the  fact  that  your predecessors signed confessions to this effect,
 `among  many  other execrable heresies. It happened in Lyon (1274) and
 `Ferrara-Florence  (1439).  And  that  it  took place out of political
 `reasons  -  this  aspect  just  shows how fragile the whole system of
 `tradition   is.  If  Turkish  threat  and  papal  boastfulness  could
 `influence  the  historical  Church  in  recognizing divinely revealed
 `truth  then I doubt that this Church has any special authority in the
 `matters  of  faith.  I'd  say  to your sarcastic inquiry in the other
 `letter that this was the very moment when the whole historical Church
 `apostasized  and forsook faith. Consequently, it can be right in some
 `matters, but cannot be appointed the highest forum of faith on earth.
 `Quod erat demonstrandum.

:To make this less of an abstract argument, consider this question: Is
:the doctrine of Sola Scriptura an infallible doctrine? If Protestants
:do not hold Sola Scriptura to be an infallible doctrine, then it is
:obvious that Sola Scriptura is not the teaching of Scripture, because
:if it were, it would be infallible too.  Thus, to the extent that Sola
:Scriptura excludes "that which is not Scripture," it excludes itself.

Sola Scriptura is an infallible Scriptural doctrine. Apart from that,
it is useful in guiding our feet.

:On the other hand, any Protestant who *does* assert the infallibility
:of Sola Scriptura, has effectively promoted himself to Pope, and the
:issue is reduced to a question of which Pope has the better credentials.

The  case  is  not  so  simple.  Infallibility  can be said about Sola
Scriptura  at  best  with  the  same  degree of certainty as about the
assertion "There is a God". So, we cannot prove it logically, but only
from  the  primary premises that "there is a God", and "the Jews got a
revelation from Him", and "They recorded on inspiration these messages
in  what  we  now  know as the books of the Palestinian canon". If you
allow  me  a  bit  of  digression, I'll prove the last one. Here is an
excerpt from one of my posts.

| The  vaunting of certain traditionalist denominations, viz. that they
| had the power to add certain books to this canon, is debunked at once
| when  we  glance  at  one single "deutero-canonical" (ie. apocryphal)
| book: the second one of Maccabees.
|
| The  famous  text  from  2Mac 12:42-46 turns out to advocate numerous
| awful  heresies  which  are considered heresies by the traditionalist
| denominations  themselves.  Namely,  those  who  were  prayed for had
| committed  idolatry,  because things dedicated to idols were found in
| their  pocket.  The punishment for idolatry can hardly be lessened to
| the  level  of the nefarious novelty of the so-called purgatory. It's
| hell.  RC  official doctrine says that 1. Idolatry is a "mortal" sin,
| 2.  Not  "invincibly  ignorant" people who had committed "mortal" sin
| and  don't regain the lost "state of sanctifying grace" go inevitably
| to hell.
|
| No  room  is  left  for  the weak evasion that they "did penance" for
| their  sins  but  couldn't  "perform the works of satisfaction". True
| repentance is always manifest in abhorring our sins, turning to God's
| infinite  mercy  and  in  throwing  away  the things dedicated to the
| idols.  These  slaughtered ones, on the contrary, kept carrying their
| sordid  things under their apparel, thus making clearer than daylight
| that  they  didn't  do  any  "penance"  but  remained in the state of
| "mortal"  sin  until  their death. Thus, by the time they were prayed
| for,  they  were  burning in the unquenchable flames of hell. And the
| author  of  the  apocryphal  fable of 2Mac knew it very well from the
| Law,  considering  the  fact  that he wrote: "this thing is forbidden
| to Jews by the Law".
|
|  So
|
|  (a) the survivors blasphemed God by asserting that they acted in a godly
|      way when praying for these particular dead people,
|  (b) the author of the book testified about his utter contempt on the law
|      when he spoke about this event as something highly
|      instructive for his readers,
|  (c) those accepting this apocryphal verse as proof for the fabulous dream
|      of the so-called purgatory necessarily endorse the author's
|      grave doctrinal errors: that idolatry is a "venial" sin, or that hell
|      doesn't exist, or that those who are known to be in hell can
|      be liberated from there with enough money.
|  (d) those who add this book to the OT canon are entangled into their own
|      speculations. Thus no coherent alternative is there to the
|      Palestinian canon.

Other  necessary  premises  before  we  could  propose Sola Scriptura:
"Jesus  Christ  is  the  Saviour  of  whom  the  Law  and the Prophets
testify",  and "Jesus Christ founded a Church exactly in the way as it
is  related  to  us  in  the  writings  of the New Testament." So Sola
Scriptura  can be considered an infallible doctrine only to the extent
as these premises apply.

And we don't appoint ourselves popes. The infallibility belongs to the
corpus  of  Scripture,  and  never  to  us.  Luther  was  corrected by
Scripture when his followers apologized for his treatment of the Jews.
Calvin  the  same  with  Servet.  Me  the  same  with  many  erroneous
conjectures  about  end  times. (I go to a Charismatic community, bear
this  in mind). Are you satisfied to hear that even I know about cases
when I erred in matters pertaining to faith and morals?

                           Digression:

 It  happened  two  years  ago,  when  I  was  seeking the answer to a
 puzzling  Job-like  question  of one of my brothers in the Lord: "why
 didn't  God  fulfill  His  promise  (namely, sending him a girl after
 detailed  description  and  perseverant prayers to this effect) in my
 case  as written in the book of Paul Yonggi Cho?" Then I advised this
 boy  (who is by two years older than me) to go on praying and to seek
 the cause  (insufficient  faith,  hidden sin, hardened heart etc.) in
 himself. Can you imagine the situation? A harmful error found its way
 into  the  teaching  of  our  congregation,  and  I  endorsed  it  in
 counselling!  I caused  despair,  stumbling, and grief! I hate having
 acted  so basely, and now have to be grateful to God for His solution
 of the  case - this youth found his desired one (probably not fitting
 the  outward description)  in  the  madhouse where he had ended up in
 despair.

But  notwithstanding  this, the Word stands as a rock, as Luther wrote
in  his  famous  song "God is our stronghold". I was corrected. So was
Luther.  So was Calvin. So were many ancient Fathers who believed that
the Eucharist is a sacrifice. Etc, etc.

:If Sola Scriptura does not exclude "that which is not Scripture," then it
:becomes appropriate to ask what the real definition of Sola Scriptura is.

The  assertion which is abbreviated as Sola Scriptura is the following
in  my  vocabulary: "God spoke to us - and this speech is exhaustively
covered in the Bible. Apart from the Bible no other reliable testimony
is available."

:If the true meaning of Sola Scriptura is to say that the writings of
:Scripture have more authority than any other writings, then Sola
:Scriptura would be a perfectly Orthodox doctrine.  This kind of Sola
:Scriptura has been present in the Orthodox Church since before
:there was an Orthodox Church.

Be  consistent,  and  interpret  the writings of less authority in the
light  of  the  more  authoritative ones. Measure the Fathers with the
Apostles,  as  it  befits someone who professes that "the Bible is the
crown  jewel of the Tradition". But you refuse to do so and argue that
the  Bible  is in many places obscure. Apart from the clear falsity of
this proposition, let you realize that this attempt of solution cannot
be  harmonized  with  what  you said above, viz. that "the writings of
Scripture  have  more authority than any other writings." What kind of
authority  is the one which can be daily buried under such pretexts as
"we  don't know how these words have to be interpreted". Note, I don't
profess  to  be  an infallible oracle in Bible interpretation. But the
constant references of traditionalists to the obscure character of the
Bible  seem  to  be much more of a shortcut argument than serious care
for  interpreting  the Bible correctly. To prove my charges let me but
call  your  attention  to  the  undeniable  fact  that traditionalists
usually pick this argument when they are challenged on an unscriptural
doctrine of theirs, and not when arriving at an obscure passage in the
Bible. In the latter case they willingly give credit to sound critical
exegesis,  as  it's  seen  from  a heap of RC Bible commentaries in my
possession.

:What the Orthodox Church does not do is to confuse the infallible
:teaching of Scripture with the fallible human understanding of Scripture.
:The two are separate things, regardless of how much or how little
:they may agree.

From  your  letters  I inferred that you are wont to unite the text of
Scripture  and  some  portions of patristic literature which you think
to  be written testimony of the Apostolic Tradition which, in turn, is
needed  in  your  system  to  interpret  the Bible infallibly. And you
call  this  mixture  "Apostolic  Tradition".  If  the  opinions of the
Fathers  aren't infallible then you commit the same error of which you
accuse  us.  If  this  portion  is  infallible  then  one  can ask the
question:  why  exactly  these  writings  and not other ones? Based on
whose authority?

:Because of this, any attempt at a truly "Scripture-only" meaning for
:Sola Scriptura is completely impractical, because the only way
:to rely *only* on Scripture is to eliminate everything that is not
:infallible, including human understanding.

Oh,  then  the best method would be not to interpret the Bible at all,
for the original manuscripts are lost. Further, there are many variant
readings,  so even the exact content of Scripture is undetermined to a
certain  extent.  But  isn't  it the Orthodox who constantly hurl such
accusations against Rome that "they strive to build up a philosophical
framework around the tiniest bit of doctrine, and analyze to death the
inscrutable  councils  of God"? Why then, in turn, do you take up this
un-Orthodox  attitude  against  me?  Nay, when you urge that I have to
interpret  Scripture  infallibly  or  else  I  am  a heretic; then you
require  of me the same elaborate description of utter mysteries which
the  arguers  of your very denomination stoutly refuse to provide when
they  are  prompted by Roman Catholics in the following issue: "You do
pray  for  the dead. Why, if not because you think that it is of avail
to them? Then, why would you pray for those in heaven? Or for those in
hell?  Thus  there  is  a third place apart from heaven and hell. Etc,
etc."  I  have  never-ever come across a single Orthodox poster on the
internet   who   hadn't   tried  to  betake  himself  to  generalistic
subterfuges  in such uncomfortable situations, approximately this way:
"We  pray  for  the  dead  out  of  love.  Why  would  love  require a
purgatory?"  You  see,  there  are  questions  which even you Orthodox
cannot answer, relying on vast patristic testimony. Why do you require
of  me, then, to declare myself infallible, in order to study the Word
of God?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I  remember  your  having  prompted  me  to  set  forth  some positive
arguments  in favour of Sola Scriptura. Before doing so, I see fitting
to   sum  up  the  weightiest  arguments  against  the  traditionalist
approach.  From  this  critique  I will unfold my positive argument.

I deem this solution useful all the more that I spent wearisome nights
refuting  your  claims  one  by  one,  yet  without  any  satisfactory
conclusion  drawn  thence.  Our  discussion,  I  fear,  crumbled apart
along  the  baffling labyrinth  of huge files.  To make some use of my
past  efforts, let me briefly reiterate my fundamental charges against
your concept of the tradition.

I.  "Apostolic  Tradition"  is  twofold:  first unwritten - this is an
apologetic  decision,  in  order to rule out the opponents' references
to  a compact library of divine revelation;  then  written - this is a
pragmatic  decision,  for  indeed  some  material is needed to rely on
apart  from  the  words  of  current high priests. There is an evident
dichotomy  between  these  two  definitions, and really, they turn out
to  be  innately  contrary to one another, for at the commencement you
asserted  ("keep  what  you  heard  of  me"), then you denied the oral
character of the AT (">oral< tradition is a misnomer").

This  dichotomy was the first thing I noticed. You attempted to defend
your  cause  by the allegation that by the end of the first millennium
the  oral tradition was penned down quite exhaustively, and now it can
be  found in patristic writings. To this I responded that a) patristic
literature  is  laden  with  intrinsic  contradictions, so it can only
contain  some  diluted  and  mutilated  particles  of the hypothetical
extra-biblical  AT,  b)  it  is admitted not to be infallible, thus it
must  be  further interpreted, c) your setting of the time interval is
at  least suggestive of selfish interests, viz. you try to exclude the
Roman contributions ab initio.

Then  you  argued that the tradition is still the best possible way of
interpreting  Scripture,  and  you  made  copious  references  to  the
erratic  interpretation  among SS believers. This assertion is hollow,
as  a)  I wasn't contrasting our interpretations but our authoritative
sources  of  divine  revelation,  b) in the course of Israel's history
unanimity  often proved to abandon truth, c) the very patristic corpus
is  extremely  various,  and  gains more or less unanimity only in the
head  of  someone  re-arranging its contents and picking some concepts
from  it to build his theology on them - and this selection is such as
gratuitous as  (in your opinion) the interpretation of the Bible among
SS  adherents,  so  a  further  authority  is required to create order
within this bedlam. (Sorry for the word.)

Thus the necessary result of a really consistent application of the AT
doctrine  is  the  pope.  With his utmost prerogatives a la Vatican I.
That  you don't realize this fact is a striking sign of preconception,
namely  that  your  denomination  one-sidedly  opted  for  a  means of
fighting heresy (ie. tradition), and when further graver disagreements
flared  between  the East and the West, she refused to appoint someone
to  authoritatively judge even the Fathers. To coin a simile, you have
an  aristocracy,  but no king. Your noble class indeed did a great job
in  suppressing  some  vile  heresies (Arianism etc.) but this feat of
theological  virtues  doesn't  authorize  their present descendants to
arrogate for themselves power, renown, or credibility. Indeed, there
is a great difference between {being right and  therefore gaining respect}
and {having respect, therefore claiming the power of determining truth}

The method of AT is ultimately based on a hierarchical body of leaders
in  which  truth  resides  by  definition,  and  who are by definition
competent  to judge in matters of faith. This approach is i) arrogant,
as  a)  it  excludes the "lay", however literate, b) it binds the Holy
Spirit  to  men,  c)  it  allows  no  re-consideration  of any matter;
further,  it  is  ii)  ineffective, as a) the "clergy" is all the same
divided, b) by now it turned out that in order to perceive the intended
meaning  of  Scripture, you all the same have to resort to the help of
erudite laymen: exegetes, linguists, archeologists, historians etc. At
least  the  Roman Church recognized this necessity, and dares now even
to declare certain patristic opinions rash and speculative (eg. Mary's
alleged  virginal  vow).  I  don't know the situation with the Ortodox
Church,  but  it  must  grieve  you that if the Fathers as a whole are
found  in  error  like the above, then no one is left on earth to save
the  Church  from  being  overcome  by the gates of hell. For this you
ought to have hired a popelike person after 1054.

II. The AT approach is the same as the method applied by the Pharisees
and  scribes.  They, having the Law, boldly deemed it obscure in spite
of  the  psalmist's  exclamation that it is a "torch of his feet", and
appointed themselves to "guard" and "interpret" it. Your words, to the
effect  that "not understanding Scripture correctly is at least as bad
as not having them at all", fit in their mouth very well, as they also
attached  their  "interpretations"  and  "applications" to the written
text,   and   under  this  cloak  they  introduced  doctrines  totally
extraneous  to  Scripture. The Pharisees whose predecessors were those
wise men who wrote Ecclesiastes, Wisdom, and Jesus Sirach, and who are
depicted  in  Proverbs,  so  these  worthy  successors  sank in heresy
gradually,  meanwhile  not  lacking  the  external attributes of valid
Mosaic  succession.  Your  attempts  at  declaring  the  Pharisees  SS
believers  spectacularly  failed  -  in  fact,  Jesus  Christ  and the
Apostles behaved quite in this manner when defending the right cause.

The  temptation  to  apply  a shortcut method in religious debates was
often  irresistible  in Church history. First the successors of Joshua
to  whom  the  Lord spake in a quasi-SS way ("Let this book of the law
not depart from thine lips" etc.) transgressed the written precepts of
the  Law  -  those  very  men whose duty would be to preach it day and
night.  Then  the  Lord raised Samuel and other prophets, to turn them
back  to obedience. You may notice how frequently the prophets inveigh
against  the  violation  of  the Law - according to its letter and its
spirit  - which shows that they themselves were anxious to preserve as
authoritative  standard the written Word. Living agents were expressly
commanded to obey the Law when fulfilling their function. Prophets had
to  be  tested  partly  by their accordance with the Law. Priests were
commissioned  with  guarding  the  Law.  Kings  were to sustain lawful
justice and to punish evildoers.

But  they failed in their function, to which God in His wrath and just
judgment  responded  with  exiles and famines, as promised in the Law.
Finally He expressly sent Isaiah to "harden the hearts of this people,
so  that  they  may  not  repent",  the prophetic meaning of which was
wholly  revealed  only  by  the  Hebrew nation's rejection of Jesus as
Christ.  Yet  the  Law,  the promises, and God's faithfulness remained
intact  despite  the perfidy of some. This is pure Sola Scriptura, for
when God chose a nation from among the many, He laid down His promises
in   writing.   The  most  expressive  symbol  of  this  was  the  Ten
Commandments  written  on tables of stone - this, even considered as a
metaphor,  can be paralleled only by the Lord's dictum: "The scripture
cannot  be broken". The Law is not just letter - to NT believers it is
also  of great profit. And as the assistance of the Holy Spirit wasn't
restricted  to  any "clergy", we may assume that God determined not in
vain  to  have  His  Gospel  written  down  -  namely,  to exclude any
distortion  on  the  part  of the leaders, of whom, by the way, it was
frequenty  stated that they would fall and go astray, deceiving many -
so that the promise "The gates of hell shall not prevail" might remain
true,  one  mustn't  identify  the  Church  with  a group which can be
recognized by certain visible masks (priesthood, Papacy, councils).

So  it  is  not the "clergy" but the Word that keeps the Church clean.
The  precedent  of  Israel,  and history itself testifies that God did
not  consider it below His dignity to enclose His message in paper and
ink - without appointing any tonsured privileged group with whom truth
stands or falls by definition.

Indeed, some utterances like that of Augustine, "I wouldn't believe in
the  Gospels  if the Church didn't testify for them" reflect a certain
tiredness  of  constant quarrels, and express a wish for a forum which
can  briefly  and  infallibly  declare  the meaning of some scriptural
verses.  But  if  consistently argued, this is no less than an impious
cry:  "Without  a pope I would pay no more regard to the Bible than to
the  Quran".  This  is the necessary result of the AT method: one gets
sick  of  unlettered  heretics  (the  ancient forerunners of Jehovah's
false   witnesses,   Mormons,  sectarian  Fundamentalists  etc.),  and
declares himself the authority.

But  there  is another snag here in the reasoning. All traditionalists
profess  their denomination to be the channel of the text of Scripture
- and by a rash conjecture, that of its "correct interpretation", too.
I  have  dwelt quite long on this presumptuous allegation, so I desist
from  flogging  this  dead  horse  further.  Thus I state briefly: the
example  of  Israel  as  a  body  having  the text but not the correct
interpretation must be definitive in defusing such unwarranted claims.
And  this weapon cannot be reversed to shoot SS crowds ("Yes, you have
the  text.  But  is  your  interpretation  infallible?"),  as we don't
attribute any specific infallibility to our denominations.

This  solution  is  undeniably  more  godly  than  the other, viz. the
traditionalist  claim,  "To  us  were  both  the  text and the correct
meaning  entrusted",  as  the  latter  proved  to  be a downright lie,
concealing  which  was possible only to the detriment of the objective
meaning  of  "true" and "false". These logical values immediately lose
their meaning when a particular self-appointed clan is the only one to
decide whether something is true or false.

III. To prevent heresy from defeating the Church, teachers are needed.
These  teachers  are best equipped by studying the dispensation of God
as  revealed  by  the  context  of  the whole Bible. Even then, in the
apostolic  era,  when  these  great men, the sources of the revelation
were  so  close to people's ears, Paul instructed Timothy to study the
Word  of  God  to learn knowledge from there, and be prepared to every
good  deed.  Apart  from  this,  he  was  commanded  to  keep the oral
apostolic   doctrine   -   but  this  cannot  be  stretched  into  the
establishment  of the "teaching office" which isn't accountable to any
standard.  Rather  he  was  referring  to  that  corpus which was then
written  down but not widely in circulation. For what other reason did
the  early  post-apostolic  Church  resolve to divide ancient writings
into two classes but because they saw that all that glitters (ancient,
bearing  a  mighty  name)  is  not  gold? Indeed, by now, when eg. 2Pt
turned  out  to  have originated from a much later period than that of
the  apostle  Peter,  and  Hebrews not the writing of Paul, it is only
Sola  Scriptura that can account for the authority of these writings -
namely,  by  the proposition  that the inspiration wasn't bound to the
apostles, but to the Word of God, in whatever form.

But  since  traditionalist  denominations  insist on the "succession",
they  inevitably  place  less  emphasis  on "training".  Succession is
much  more  comfortable  to  verify  than  proper  training unto sound
doctrine, but as shown by the irreformable schism between the East and
the  West,  it  is  counter-productive  as  it  causes hardening. Sola
Scriptura  (which  insists  on  the  latter) affixes the attributes of
orthodoxy  to  the  Word  of  God,  and  not to human predecessors, so
breaking the chain of succession (which was, by the way, broken not by
us but by those traditionalists who wandered away from truth, however,
was in a spiritual sense maintained  everywhere  where  sound doctrine
survived)  isn't  so  grievous  a thing that by it the devil could get
hold  of  the  Church. We SS people see that Arius was a presbyter and
Nestorius was a patriarch - so the mere title didn't prevent them from
becoming heresiarchs.  Arianism, as well as  icon-veneration,  had its
influential  advocates  among  the clergy, and many bishops were lured
into these horrid blasphemies.


So  another forum turned out to be necessary, and it is sound exegesis
of the Bible. I really don't want to defend, as complete statements of
the  truth,  every  opinion of every expounder - however, an erroneous
conjecture based on insufficient material is still liable to challenge
via  counter-arguments,  thus it is less harmful than an authoritative
decree  of  a  tiara'd  celebrity based on his own authority which, in
turn, cannot be challenged anymore. And exegesis, archeology, language
study and other  means can rank with patristic literature in providing
the proper historical background to the Bible.  Your grievous error is
that you  cling to the latter only,  betraying  a ridiculous  creed of
Sola Traditio. But look at a medieval painting of the Last Supper: all
characters are  shown sitting  at a long  table, the beloved  disciple
John  leaning  in  a distorted posture onto the bosom of Christ - what
semblance  of  "knowing  the historical context" can be pretended now,
seeing  this  pathetic  blunder that they didn't know even the trivial
fact that meals then were taken in a recumbent posture?

As  for  interpretation,  you  may  know  about  the latest exegetical
somersaults  performed  by  the  present  pope:  that  it  wasn't Mary
Magdalene to have first seen the resurrected Christ but - guess who? -
His  mother.  Proof? Nothing. The whole thing is based on speculation:
"Let's  accept  this option as probable, then let's try to explain the
Evangelists'  silence  on  the  matter  by some auxiliary hypotheses".
Lamentable.  And  do you know what will remain from the current, quite
reluctant,  reception  of the papal opinion? One may extrapolate based
on the case of pope Victor and the Easterns in the Paschal controversy.

Victor  adventurously  excommunicated  the  Easterns  in  a  matter so
unimportant,  and  drew  forth  some  sharp  rebukes from Irenaeus. He
submitted,  and  withdrew  the excommunication. Thus far the case. And
how  do  Romanist  arguers sum up this story? That Rome evidently felt
like  authoritatively  acting  in  the  matters  of the whole Church -
although  she  then  didn't  have  sufficient power to exact her will.
Nothing  is  mentioned  regarding  the  contrary  opinion  of the most
important  theologian  of  the  century - so that the pope may prevail
over the Church. Sapienti sat.

The  same  was  committed  as  to the "immaculate conception" of their
semi-goddess:  the first feast devoted to it was fiercely condemned by
Bernard  of Clairvaux, and yet, what do we read in a papal compilation
of dogma? that the decision in 1854 "didn't come as a surprise but was
the  culmination  of  long years of preparation." And the first quoted
proof  of  this  "preparation" is the word of pope Sixtus IV, from the
late  XVth century. The former Dominican-Franciscan quarrel about this
doctrine was courteously hidden by the authors.

On this basis we can expect that any kind of fables, fictions, dreams,
and  visions  can  claim acceptance on the mere score that a pope or a
council   upheld  them  once.  Nay,  the  Papalist  divines  who  were
interrogated on the  misspeech of their idol, not daring to denounce a
heresy  of  so  high an authority, in a servile manner said that it is
not  an infallible decree, however, it is not unprecedented either. By
these  manoeuvres  they  try  to  slur over the pope's heresy, so that
fifty  years  later another pope may triumphantly revive this doctrine
and  say  "my  predecessor  of  happy memory, JP/2, openly taught this
doctrine."

The usual course of RC extra-biblical dogma is the following: Rejected
by  a  pope - professed by someone - professed by a pope, yet met with
the  opposition  of  bishops  -  urged in papal documents (this is the
status  of  "pious  and  probable  opinion", which label Papalists are
likely  now  to  stick  on the New Word of the Pope) - thrust down the
throat  of a Papalist council of robbers - declared "de fide". You can
recall  the case of papal primacy (Gal 2 - Victor - Sardica - Carthage
-  Chalcedon  - Pepin - Pseudo-Isidore - Gratian - The Black Monster -
Trent  - Vatican I) to this effect. Unbridled demand of power ought to
be  counteracted  by  some  agent of truth. Heresy grows fastest where
scriptural control is switched off at the very beginning.

Tradition  is  not enough to curb the licence of the pope either. Yes,
although  several  councils  caught the pope red-handed (Chalcedon and
the  forged  sixth  canon  of  Nicea; Carthage and the Sardican canons
called  Nicene; Constantinople and Vigilius giving freedom to heresy),
yet some doctrines may deeply trouble the faithful unless the pope
confirms them.

Here  is  the  proof:  you profess a belief which cannot be reconciled
even  with  itself.  I  proved  with invincible arguments that you are
bound  by your own method of ascertaining dogma to believe in the base
doctrine of penal purification. By your silence you agreed. Thus it is
clearer  than daylight that the tradition without a pope is a beheaded
corpse,  considering  the  result  achieved  by  the  denial  of papal
infallibility,  viz. your incapacity of proving your set of beliefs to
be  even self-consistent. The tradition necessarily drags along a pope
- as it is said, having devoured the cow, why do you refuse to eat its
tail?

I  do  not seriously contend for your accepting the Vatican decree. My
purpose  is  to  show  you  the  necessary  doctrinal  result  of your
traditionalism.  You  want to be sure of everything in the faith. Here
you have arrived, to the feet of the pope.

IV.  Sola  Scriptura  does  avoid  the  above confusion by placing the
requirements  lower:  that  it's  not our job to frame new articles of
faith,  but  rather  to  preserve  the  deposit of faith. Whereas this
phrase   is   just   an   empty  excuse  of  the  traditionalists  for
formulating  extra-biblical  doctrines  and elevating them to the same
level as the Bible, we SS adherents mean it serious. We study the Word
for  this  very reason - perchance some minor details happened to slip
our  predecessors'  minds. The spiritual assistance, as I have already
mentioned,  isn't  bound  to  the  "clergy",  so  Bible  study  can be
Spirit-assisted too.

Of course,  having  the  Scripture  won't  make anyone infallible. The
Pharisees,  traditionalist  Christians,  paedobaptist  Calvinists, and
people  of  the  like disposition all attached their traditions to the
Bible.  You  rightly  pointed  out to this discrepancy. To exclude our
fleshly thoughts rising to the level of Scripture, we need the devil's
advocate,  ie.  heretics  who continually urge us to prove our beliefs
from  the  Bible. The absence of heresies - or their annulling by fire
and sword - inevitably renders the Church fat and inert. This was what
happened  to  your  denomination  and  to  the  RCs,  and this is what
threatens the Christians of all ages.

I  myself  believe  in the Trinity, can back it up from Scripture, and
confute  the contrary assertions. When I meanwhile read and freely use
Athanasius'  arguments,  I by no means become a traditionalist. Rather
the Fathers, using Scriptural reasons against the heretical side, prove
to have professed Sola Scriptura.

V.  Interpreting  Scripture  is  also  an  empty  word in the mouth of
traditionalists,  because  the  purpose for which they employ it (viz.
they  seek  a  pretext  under  which  they  can  have  their novelties
accepted)  is  conspicuous by two off-the-cuff examples: 1. Paul said:
Do  not  forbid marriage. Traditionalists forbid it to some. 2. Christ
said:  Drink  of  it,  all  of you. Romans prohibit the "lay" from it.
What slightest hint of "interpretation" can be spoken about here, when
the  conclusion  is  the outright opposite of what was declared in the
Bible?

Interpreting  Scripture  is  not only a crucial duty for SS believers,
but  also a fruitful means of edification. Yes, Peter said that Paul's
letters  contain  some  difficult-to-understand  things  - but does it
authorize  any  traditionalist  to  appoint himself the true expounder
thereof?  By  no  means.  Further,  Paul himself frequently resorts to
self-explanation  and reiteration of what was told: "Shall we sin more
so  that  grace  may  abound?" - "Did God reject His people?" - "Do we
abolish  the  law?"  -  "Is God unjust when punishing us?" - "Are Jews
distinguished?" etc. etc. Certain unstable and untaught men may easily
distort   these   passages  by  tearing  them  out  of  Paul's  shrewd
pedagogical  context.  This was the danger against which Peter fought.

But  the miserable pretensions of certain traditionalists are unmasked
immediately  when we realize that what is going on is Paul's favourite
style of diatribe. It is clear that the difficult-to-understand things
are  not  "prayer to the dead", "Mariology", "auricular confession" or
suspicious  novelties  of  similar  origin - these things are just the
perverted  surrogates  being  substituted for those precepts which are
actually  of  apostolic origin but no one keeps them: "let women cover
their  heads",  "don't  eat  blood", "wash one another's feet", "don't
forbid  speaking  in tongues." After having disposed of these commands
on  account of various considerations, they hypocritically put forward
their imaginations as compulsory discipline or doctrine.

VI.  Finally,  the  AT method subjects the Word of God to the words of
men,  saying  "these  scrolls can't be understood without our frame of
beliefs.  It's  us  to  provide the proper background." How ridiculous
this  version  is,  is shown  by  their obstinate denial to follow the
rabbis  who,  in  turn,  are  excellently  furnished with all kinds of
interpreting  contexts.  SS  method  uses  interpreting means too, but
calls   them  fallible,  thus  submitting  to  the  authority  of  the
Scripture.  It  is  in accordance with the fact that it is the Word of
God that judges us, and not vice versa.