[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

The problem with that argument from II Timothy is that it proceeds to qualify "profitable" as that which is able to make a person "perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." Which eliminates in one fell swoop any need for the Catholic idea of adding "tradition" to Scripture. If a person is throughly furnished unto all good works by Scripture, then nothing else is needed.

The Catholic arguments for tradition simply don't work (interesting, though, they have to be supporter from Scripture, making Scripture *still* the arbiter, not "the church" or tradition). Jesus did condemn corrupt tradition - because it was tradition that conflicted with the Word of God. Indeed, at several points, Jesus vociferously defies tradition *on that basis*. The traditions that Paul spoke of, well, there is simply no logical basis whatsosver to read in the Catholic meaning of "tradition" - more logically, the traditions that Paul told the Thessalonians to hold to was simply the preaching of the Word that he had given them personally when he was there - which would not have conflicted with the later written Word. Catholic arguments simply beg too many questions to be credible, intellectually.

I do agree that the Bible doesn't teach that some doctrines are "minor" and that we can ignore them - but the fact that this is done so today is not the fault of sloa scriptura. Indeed, one would think that if someone were serious about sola scriptura, it would engender the exact OPPOSITE approach to these doctrines (and indeed, it DOES, among those who actually ARE sola scriptura in practice, rather than just in word). Catholic tradition, on the other hand, is what "allows" people to violate scripture left and right on the basis that "Mother Church said they could."

[Cronos]

It does not say that scripture is sufficient. Furthermore, remember that the "scripture" referred to in Timothy is Jewish scripture as many books in the NT like the Gospel of John and Revelation hadn't been written yet.

Jesus condemned corrupt tradition, but yet said that He came to fulfil tradition. Holy Tradition of itself in no way contradicts Scripture -- how can it when Scripture was birthed from Tradition (how else would you know that The Acts of Paul are not scripture while Jude is?)

How was scripture compiled? At councils in The Church through the grace of God and in the environment of Holy Tradition. If you discount Tradition, then on what basis do you say that you have an infallible collection of books? Or would you state that you have a fallible collection of infallible books?

[r9etb]

If a person is throughly furnished unto all good works by Scripture, then nothing else is needed.

Nothing else ... including the Holy Spirit.... and yet God gave us the Holy Spirit, who "will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you."

Isn't it amazing how Scripture (which wasn't even written yet!) doesn't enter into what Jesus promised to his disciples and to us?

All that rather strongly suggests that there is a serious fallacy at the heart of convenient idea of Sola Scriptura. And more than a little human pridefulness: who, precisely, is qualified to provide the definitive interpretation of difficult passages of Scripture?

But we already knew that: that particular idea is at the root of why there are so many thousands of different denominations and accusations of heresy.