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.
"Here we go with the man-made labels again"
I apologizing for reciprocating in what you started. It appears that I was correct in my assumption.
"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."
Another comment, no doubt, on the merit of Bible Alone.
It seems you have a misunderstanding of the Catholic position. Dogma is the defining of revelation already made, implicitly or explicitly, in Scripture and the interpretation of the Scripture (which I have named "Apostolic Tradition). We don't make stuff up, as you say. And of course, you failed to answer my question regarding WHERE exactly does it say all information about God must be written in the Bible.
If I may add to your analogy, you choose to study your textbook alone, and I will study the lecture notes, homework assignments, and the textbook, noting that there is no contradiction between them. Likely, I will have a better understanding of the subject at hand than you would.
I continue to stand by my criticism of the above author's understanding of the Trinity. There are not Three Beings, but One. And also, the Divine Nature did not suffer or become restricted on account of the Incarnation.
Can we agree on that?
Brother in Christ