Sola Scriptura vs Sola Dei Verbum

For TraditionCon makes the following argument:1. Whatever is taught by the apostles is inspired by God.2. The apostles taught both by speaking and by writing.3. Therefore, both the spoken and written words of the apostles are inspired by God.Con defends the first premise by saying that if the written words were inspired, then the spoken words must've been, too, which doesn't follow. Neither does Con justify his assumption that all the Traditions of the Catholic church accurately represent the spoken words of the apostles.I acknowledged in my opening that God inspired more than just the scriptures. However, it is possible for God to reveal something to somebody and yet it not be authoritative and binding on the whole church. After all there are false teachers, false prophets, and false apostles. If somebody claims that God spoke to them, it has to be tested in light of scripture before it can be accepted. That is the pattern throughout the Bible, and I gave two examples in the last round which Con ignored. I showed from Acts 17:11 that the teaching of the apostle Paul was tested in light of the scriptures, and I showed from Matthew 15:1-6 that tradition is tested in light of scripture. Every supposed divine source of information is subordinate to the scriptures.It's true that the oral traditions of the apostles carried authority (2 Thessalonians 2:15), but it doesn't follow that the Traditions held by the Catholic church today carry that same authority, much less that they are inspired.. I argued in the last round that we can't verify the accurate preservation of tradition like we can the scriptures. Tradition cannot have equal authority with scripture if we can't know that they came from the apostles. Con ignored that argument.Against sola scripturaCon claims that if sola scriptura were true, then it should be taught in scripture. Since it is not, sola scriptura is self-refuting and false. That argument fails for two reasons. First, sola scriptura is taught in scripture as I showed in the last round (and in this round). Second, even if sola scriptura was not taught in scripture, that would not make the doctrine self-refuting. As Con acknowledged, sola scriptura is not the view that the scriptures are the only source of knowledge for Christian. Since there are truths that are not contained in scripture, sola scriptura does not need to be taught in scripture before it can be true.2 Timothy 3:16-17Con doesn't think 2 Timothy 3:16-17 teaches the sufficiency of the scriptures, so let's take a closer look."All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."The word translated "adequate" is αρτιος, meaning, perfect, complete, fitted, ready.[1] If it is by the scriptures that the man of God is adequately equipped for every good work, then the scriptures are sufficient to equip the man of God for every good work. That should include the work Paul was calling Timothy to do, which included teaching. If the scriptures are sufficient to equip Timothy for the work of teaching, then the scriptures must contain all necessary doctrines. That means the scriptures are sufficient for the church.Con objects to the sufficiency of scripture on the basis that we also need air, food, and water. Assuming that wasn't a joke, he has missed Paul's point, which is that the scriptures contain all the information necessary for every good work.Con points out that supposing the scriptures are sufficient to equip us for every good work, it doesn't follow that it contains all true Christian teachings. He claim that I've committed a non-squitur, but he has committed a strawman fallacy since I never made that inference. What sufficiency entails is that all necessary Christian doctrines are contained in scripture. There may be some true teaching outside of scripture, but if so, they are not necessary for the church. Both Catholics and protestants acknowledge a distinction between essential and non-essential doctrines, so this shouldn't be an issue.CanonCon claims that we need the authority of the church to justify knowing scripture. If that is true, then nobody knew what the scriptures were until the church made an infallible proclaimation about it, which supposedly happened at the council of Carthage in 397 CE.[2] If that's true, then the frequent references to scripture in the New Testament make no sense. How could Timothy have known the scriptures from childhood if the church hadn't told him what they were yet (2 Timothy 3:15)? How could Apollos have proved from the scriptures that Jesus was the Christ (Acts 18:28)? How could the Bereans check Paul's teachings against the scriptures (Acts 17:11)?I argued that if Catholics insist that we cannot know scripture apart from the authority of the church, they commit circular reasoning. He avoids the charge of circular reasoning by beginning with the assumption that the scriptures are merely true rather than infallible. But that is how I treat the decisions of the early church. We don't need an infallible proclaimation to tell us what the scriptures are. We only need a true proclaimation.I question whether Con has really avoided the charge of circularity, though. He interprets Jesus as teaching the infallibliity of the Catholic church. But how does he know his interpretation is correct? Supposedly, "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been intrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone."[3] So, we know Jesus taught the infallibility of the Catholic church because that's how the Catholic Church interprets him, and they are infallible. That's circular reasoning. Sources1. http://biblesuite.com...2. http://www.bible-researcher.com...3. http://www.vatican.va...