I said "...Hmm. Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. Where exactly can I find those in the Bible? Are these doctrines of man?"
You replied "...And you have seen me mention neither. My association with these doctrines is assumed on your part"
I would like to humbly disagree with your reply. Here is what you wrote earlier...
"I don't know where you're getting your information from but it's definately not the Bible"
This implies that the Bible is the sole source of knowledge about God. And quoting 2 Timothy 3:16 proves your doctrine. I would first like to say this verse says nothing about Sola Scriptura, The Bible Alone. It is profitable, not all-inclusive.
I would disagree with you that the Bible contains the only truth that we can know. Nowhere does the Bible make this claim. Time and again, the Bible does tell us to hold onto the Traditions passed down - some orally, some written. Where does the Bible tell us to ignore this rule and adhere only to written Traditions? This is where Sola Scriptura fails.
"As to my comment concerning your using extra-biblical references for your understanding of the Trinity, you proved as much when you cited uninspired writers"
You are correct, these writers are uninspired. However, these Fathers made their formulations based on Scripture and the Apostolic Tradition (defined as "how do I interpret Scripture correctly"). Using these, the Councils of Nicea infallibly defined the very limited knowledge that we have about Jesus and His relationship to the Father. The Holy Spirit guarantees this as He did at the Council of Jerusalem noted in Acts 15 "it seemed good to us AND the Holy Spirit". Christ promised the Spirit would be guiding us always, so there is no reason to presume that only the Council of Jerusalem is infallible. I believe your logic on why the Church Councils are unacceptable is false.
Brother in Christ
Here we go with the man-made labels again. I don't use the 'Sola Scriptura' naming convention label - though I know what it means - due to the fact that most people who claim the label don't actually practice it. I find it easier to let the 'Word of God' be the word of God. But you have stated exactly where the traditions of men fail; in that they ignore or add to the Bible.
I had a teacher once who gave us a final exam and it covered topics that he had not discussed with us in class nor assigned as reading requirements. I didn't think that was fair. Maybe you do.
This all started concerning the differences in understanding of the concept of the trinity. I stated that you used extra-biblical references and you have agreed that this was true (our difference of opinion as to their worthiness, nonwithstanding). I just thought it harsh to label someone a heretic for using different language than is accepted by man's doctrine. If the authors concept of the trinity comes from a proper reading of God's word, without the knowledge of uninspired men, then I suspect he'll be okay on judgement day. Good Day.