The verse in your signature doesn’t even say what you claim it to say. Just letting you know.
Very true … It says Scripture is “inspired,” “helpful,” and “good,” never that it is the only doctrine we need to know Truth. I can read “This is my Body, this is my blood–do this in memory of me,” and conclude something similar to memorialism, but without knowing the Greek behind the text, what good is such a faulty interpretation?
“Touto poieite eis tan eman anamnesin.” Touto poieite means one of two things: 1) “do this” or 2) “offer this.” In Malachi 1 rests a prophecy which speaks of a future time when a pure Offering to the Lord will be offered all over the world, and the first century Christian community was quick to claim the Eucharist as the fulfillment of such a prophecy. Yes, these two words in the Septuagint are used in a sacrificial context numerous times, especially in Torah. The last word, anamnesin, means more than to “remember.” It is much stronger than that, and we don’t really have a perfect English equivalent to it. Truthfully, it means something more in line with “re-present.” Hence, when someone suffers an anamnestic reponse they refer to the following: Let’s say, for example, that a bee stings a person and the sting-mark swells. They are stung again in a different place, and the first sting reacts! In same way, the historic Church believed in the Eucharist as a re-presentation of Christ’s one and only Sacrifice at Calvary, not as a distinct one (make sense?). By looking at the text, however, all this isn’t apparent.
show me in Scripture where God instructs us to look elsewhere for instruction.
Well, there are several places in Scripture where Paul tells the believers to hold on to and practice the traditions and teachings they received from him (2 Thess. 2:15, 1 Cor. 11:2, for example), but as Paul reaffrims in that first passage, the traditions the Church was to adhere to to were not merely in written format, but also the spoken Word, as well. The Word of God is not merely some inanimate thing, it is living and breathing–it is spoken as well. Sadly though, Protestants only accept half of Our Lord’s Word!
You can’t justify your view by Scripture, though. See? It merely calls Scripture “profitable” (“useful,” “helpful,” what have you), but consider the following: What was the early Church built upon? The Bible? There was none. Then what? The Teaching (or “Tradition”) of the Apostles, of course! Is the Church built on the Word of God? Hopefully: If not, we’re in trouble! If the Church is built upon the Apostles’ “human words,” she’s built on sinking sand. We must conclude that their doctrine was, and is, synonymous with the Word of Christ, in order that we acknowledge the Church as being firmly planted in Truth. Therefore, the Bible, while totally inspired, is not SOLEY inspired: So was (and is) the Apostles’ doctrine, upon which the Church was built.
By the way, is my signature authoritative to you? Is it inspired? Is Tobit profitable for teaching, correction, etc.? If not, why? And, who decides anyway? Luther, or the Church, “pillar and support of the Truth” (1 Tim. 3:15)?
(Think about it!)