I was trying to say that while the Trinity is not explicitly put forth in scripture, there is still scriptural support that it is true, independent of Tradition. For example, I think there is a reason we are not taught to Baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and Paul. The truth of the Trinity is not dependent on Tradition, but on reasonable inference on what is in scripture.
The Lutheran solas, on the other hand, were never taught by the Church.
If they had been there never would have been a need for them. :) We disagree on whether the Church is the only source of truth.
Scripture is a part of the Tradition, so if anything is scriptural then it is also traditional. I agree that the easiest reading of the Scripture is trinitarian reading; however, there are lower-t traditions out there that read the Scripture in a non-trinitarian way. The situation is different with Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura, for which there is no plain-text support whatsoever, and there is a plain-text denial of both.
We disagree on whether the Church is the only source of truth.
We do, and once again the Scripture bears me out (1 Timothy 3:15).
FK, I know you don't like this, but the simple historical fact of the matter is that Christ SAID those words of Matthew 28 first, they were passed along ORALLY to the future followers of Christ, and only later, perhaps 20-30 years later, only THEN, did those words get WRITTEN. The simple truth is that the Apostles wrote down the Gospels only many years later. The Christian concept of Baptism did NOT come from the Bible, but from Christ, to the Apostles and given ORALLY. Thus, your logic is mistaken. The Scriptures do NOT dictate what the Church taught, but the Scriptures merely relate what was already being taught...
Thus is Sola Scriptura a farce.
Regards