Well... again, that's very interesting, and we can discuss those quotes in a moment, but: can you tell me where "sola Scriptura" (as per your definition) is found in the Bible? Since you claim to be a "sola Scriptura" adherent, and since neither you nor I claim to be a "sola Sancti" ("Saints only") adherent, isn't it reasonable for me to ask you where "sola Scriptura" is found in the Bible? If it isn't there, then--by your standard--we ought not to follow it... right?
Earlier, you laughed and accused me of "cherry-picking" the Scriptures (which is nonsense--I explained to you, already, that a denial of "only use Scripture" doesn't translate as "never use Scripture"; you understand that now, right?). But don't you see that you're "cherry-picking" the Saints? St. Gregory of Nyssa, for example, believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (see
here, for a few references), and you do not. How is that possible, if you both believe in "sola Scriptura", and if "sola Scriptura" is all that's needed to find salvific truth? Since you and St. Gregory hold opposite positions, and since there are only two possibilities for the Eucharist (either it is the true Body of Christ, or it isn't), one of you must be wrong, and one of you must be right. Do you follow, so far?
Sorry for the delay; work and family took priority.
I made a very logical point:
I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with that one...
The verse is explicit, it speaks of actions,
Back up. look at your exchange with Salvation, again:
Salvation: "The Bible Itself declares that it doesn’t contain everything [cf. John 21:25].”
You: "Absolute falsehood! (etc.)"
This comment by you was not only dead wrong (and provably so, and quite easily), but it was--forgive me--rather a stupid comment to make, as well. Had you said to Saltation, "Yes, that's technically true, but I don't think that verse refers to
teachings; I think it refers only to non-teaching, non-verbal
events, such as healings, and other miracles!", I would have seen some sense in that (even though it would still have been nothing more than your mere opinion). But when you sweep everything into one verbal pile by saying, "That's absolute falsehood!", when it's obviously not, I have to wonder whether you mistyped something, or whether you followed the original argument at all!
Is it not obvious that, if the Bible admits to excluding
some material (no matter what it might be), it must be true that the Bible
doesn't "contain everything"? At best, your rejoinder was careless; at worst, it was a bizarre non-sequitur that had no basis in fact. You might think that the "excluded content" referenced in John 21:25 is irrelevant fluff; well and good--just prove it, rather than stating your mere opinion, forcefully and colourfully. But it's just silly for you to take exception to Salvation's (perfectly true) statement, as you did.
not instructions,
All right. Can you supply reasoning/evidence/proof for this assertion? That
was the main point, you know.
and doesn’t include any oral traditions (which Christ roundly denounced himself).
Oh, come now! Do you seriously think that Jesus denounced
ALL oral tradition? Or do you think that St. Paul simply didn't get the memo from our Blessed Lord when he wrote the following?
"Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and
hold the traditions which you have learned,
whether by word, or by our epistle." (2 Thessalonians 2:15)
"And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us." (2 Thessalonians 3:6; this actually sounds rather bad for people who REJECT Sacred Tradition, frankly...)
No... Jesus condemned FALSE traditions (which makes perfect sense), but He did not condemn ALL tradition; and He certainly did not condemn the Sacred Tradition which He, Himself, gave the Apostles! (You will note, won't you, that Jesus didn't write the Bible, but rather preached the Gospel? How would it have been handed down until the time of its writing and final approval, save through Oral Tradition?)
I didn’t use any dodges, snark, or innuendo.
You didn't?
"The kids are all over this thread with their simplistic retorts, can we have a new thread for adults? Arguing with childish minds is like trying to clean a mirror with a muddy rag."
"Typical catholic twisting."
Sounds rather like snark and innuendo, to me (and especially ironic, since--after your little "gem" about "kids" and "simplistic retorts", you follow up with things like "typical Catholic twisting"). Or did you learn, while growing up, that it was perfectly polite to sneer at your opponents by demeaningly calling them "kids" and "non-adults", belittling them as "childish minds", and dismissing their comments by likening discussion with them to "cleaning a mirror with a muddy rag"? Sorry, friend... you're guilty of snark and innuendo, and you just got busted. Couldn't you just own up to it, apologize, and move on to some civil and logical discourse?
Now... especially since RnMomof7 seems to have headed elsewhere: would YOU care to take up the main challenge of the thread, and tell me where "sola Scriptura" is taught explicitly in the Bible? If it isn't there, then "sola Scriptura" would seem to tell us not to follow "sola Scriptura"... right?