Sola Scriptura vs Sola Dei Verbum

And here it is, the end of my first debate. Thanks to Philochristos for making it a very fun and interesting debate and getting me off to a good start. I can only hope that my other debates will as challenging. In my opening remarks, I made three arguments for Sola Dei Verbum (henceforth SDV). I argued that the teachings of the apostles are authoritative and have equal standing with the Bible since they contain identical content. Because they are identical, they must both have the property of infallibility. Pro seems to have not addressed this anymore. So I win this point. My second argument has been most contentious. I argued that if SS is false, then SDV is more plausible. I argued SS was false because we ought to see it taught in scripture, and we don't. Pro argued 2nd Tim did that and gave a qualified definition of SS, making good works a necessary condition. I argued that this did not work because 1) it was a tautology, 2) it was a non-sequitur because it needn't be necessary for good works for it to infallible and 3) while SS entailed all of Scripture to be infallible, we learn exactly how much of Scripture is meant when we learn how much of Scripture entails SS thus leaving out Revelation, which I think is a reductio. Pro did not address 1, bit the bullet on 3, and contended me on 2. He argued that I ignored him about his argument on how 2nd Tim implies that Scripture contains all necessary doctrine. But I objected that here Scripture most likely refers to the OT. He did not address this. I also may not have addressed his point in the same way because he qualified it by saying necessary doctrine was that which is beneficial for good works, which did take me by surprise, especially after conceding 3. I take that to be a reductio, and SS a very unimpressive doctrine (though I think this does pave way for more ecumenical dialogue, so I am also happy :-) I look forward to more discussions as a result of this debate) Pro misunderstands my point about genealogies, which is the same point about Revelation, conceded in 3. So it seems I win this argument as well. My third argument for SDV was that the teaching authority of the Church was necessary for knowing Scripture. Here, I admit I may have made a misstep. I did say, "Granted we're in the same boat, we're at a stalemate." Pro took that to be a concession. It was not. It was a concession for sake of argument at the moment, but I did intend on challenging it, but as my next sentence indicated, I ran out of room. But I suppose for winning debate points, this will have to do, and I won't make any new arguments, as agreed. So, as far as my positive arguments go, I say I'm 2.5/3. Pro make three points concerning SS. There isn't much to say about his first. About his second, Pro argues that all revelation must be tested by Scripture and are therefore subject to it. But I argued that didn't follow. What does follow is that Scripture is a valid way of testing new revelation, but that does not mean it cannot have equal authority to it, and to argue otherwise is ad ignorantium. Pro did not seem to address this. I wish I would have had time to unpack the argument that Pro cannot even have Scripture without the church, but as I mentioned, I did not have the time. Oh well :-/ Nonetheless, I still come out on top on this point. His third point was contended in my second argument. He concludes with this statement, "[SS] is, I believe, a true doctrine, but it is not necessary..." I can't help but scratch my head at this. What's the big fuss then with having this as one of the lasting battle cries of the Protestants? Perhaps Philochristos can explain to me in private correspondence. If it is not taught in scripture, and most of the debate here has revolved around that, then it is very difficult to come to such a doctrine, and if you could, it would still be a very weak and uninteresting doctrine. So clearly I have won this debate. And if you're still unconvinced, Philochristos has misspelled my user name multiple times. This is unforgiveable. I am Darth_Pious, you rebel scum. Therefore, his character is deficient, and all his arguments are invalid. :-P Thank you.