Greetings...By small t i mean the oral tradition that was espoused by the Apostles to the early church...this oral tradition would be in lock step to the epistles and writings of the same apostles...this is different than big T Tradition in the sense that the church later 'realized', i guess is the word i've been told many times, things...such as the Dogma of Mary's immaculate conception and her assumption for instance...nothing in scripture is ever mentioned yet the church has declared dogma on that item...That is big T tradition, it's not in lockstep with any accepted Divinely inspired text...
I, for one have never said the small t tradition is any issue...One has to be completely naive that not all information was given in written text...that being said, the written text IS the Word of God...in it contains the knowledge of the promise and delivery of Salvation by God and we learn how His Grace will forgive those who believe on Him etc...any oral teaching MUST match this clearly and explictly, it cannot be 'sort of' shown thru the scriptures...
So in algebraic terms it's this:
small t = mirror image of written scripture
Big T = items transmitted to the church that is either not in the scriptures in any form or very loosely associated.
Either way, I believe what the Apostles preached...Christ is THE only way to salvation, there is none other...and our salvation does not depend on our works of love, but on a true faith that is alive with works of love...
Please feel free to comment...all my remarks are meant to be in the most respectful tone I can give...
Blessings to you and yours!
Likewise, although I can get pretty acerbic at times, which is not something I take pride in. It's easy to let it all hang out in a publc forum, so if I've offended you or anyone, please forgive me.
You said:
I, for one have never said the small t tradition is any issue...One has to be completely naive that not all information was given in written text...that being said, the written text IS the Word of God...in it contains the knowledge of the promise and delivery of Salvation by God and we learn how His Grace will forgive those who believe on Him etc...any oral teaching MUST match this clearly and explictly, it cannot be 'sort of' shown thru the scriptures...
Yet this is exactly what Jesus was accused of perverting when He revealed Himself to the world. The Pharisees blasted Jesus for violating and negating the Law. Jesus corrected them by stating that He wasn't abolishing the Law, but fulfilling it. Jesus actions were contradictory of what was "clear" and "explicit" in the eyes of the elite, however, the Mosaic Law and the Old Testament was overflowing with foreshadowings of Christ, though they were not "clear" and "explicit". For example:
Christ signified by water:
Numbers 20:1
"And when Moses had lifted up his hand, and struck the rock twice with the rod, there came forth water in great abundance, so that the people and their cattle drank, "
And again: Exodus 17:6
"Behold I will stand there before thee, upon the rock Horeb: and thou shalt strike the rock, and water shall come out of it that the people may drink. Moses did so before the ancients of Israel"
Christ's crucifixion and the healing of our souls:
Numbers 21:8-9
"And the Lord said to him: Make brazen serpent, and set it up for a sign: whosoever being struck shall look on it, shall live.
Moses therefore made a brazen serpent, and set it up for a sign: which when they that were bitten looked upon, they were healed."
Exodus 16
Discusses at length "manna" = Jesus, the Bread of Life.
Also, the tribes of Israel encamped around the sacred tent in the shape of a cross.
The flight from Pharaoh signifies man's flight from Satan, saved by passing through the waters of the Red Sea (Baptism).
etc. etc. etc...
None of this is "explicit" of Jesus Christ to those in darkness. It wasn't indicative of Jesus Christ until Jesus Christ came and shined a light on it - for the sole reason that the Jews refused to receive the edification inherent in fidelity to God the Father. Their constant rebellion left them at the mercy of earthly foes and unable to recognize the Messiah when He came. Thus, the Pharisees did not recognize Jesus in the Mosaic Law because they did not have the grace to understand Scripture below the surface. Therefore, when Jesus claimed to be the Bread of Life, the faithful Jew recognized Him as the merciful God presented to the Hebrews in the desert. The "political" Jews and those left ignorant by their malfeasance (as "bad" shepherds, if you will) could not bear the teaching of the Eucharist because they could not understand beyond what was "explicit".
So, the insistence that any oral teaching "must match this clearly" is more than reminiscent of the attack of the Pharisees on Jesus, who revealed what was hidden in plain sight in the Old Testament, and contrary to their belief.
So, big T tradition, as you call it, only continues to reveal what is already "hidden in plain site" in Scripture. If you reject this practice, then you MUST reject the doctrine of the Trinity, because there is no "explicit" mention of a triune God anywhere in the Bible. Like the Immaculate Conception it was drawn out through many years of exegesis. The Immaculate Conception was pondered for hundreds upon hundreds of years before being declared dogma. It wasn't suddenly "invented" any more than the Trinity.
it cannot be 'sort of' shown thru the scriptures...
How is that quantified? Is it like being "sort of pregnant"? It either IS or ISN'T in Scripture. If it's "sort of" in Scripture then it IS in Scripture. What is important is that it supports God's plan of salvation for the world and does not contradict it. God's plan of salvation encompasses both the Bible and the Church. If it was just "the Bible", there would be no need for a "Church" (of any denomination) and Paul, himself, would be an impossible heretic for helping to establish churches.