[SoothingDave]

Well, the home plate umpire better have a chest protector, but it is the rule book that is authoritative, and under which the umpire works.

Thank you. Gramatically this sentence does not mean that the rule book is sufficient to fully equip the umpire. Only that it is necessary.

Making the sentence about the Bible doesn't change what the words and sentence structure means, unless you already believe so. Quoting this as "proof" of sola Scriptura is balderdash.

The verse says the Bible is necessary, and no Catholic will disagree with you on that. It does not say it is sufficient.

SD

[Diamond]

Making the sentence about the Bible doesn't change what the words and sentence structure means, unless you already believe so. Quoting this as "proof" of sola Scriptura is balderdash.

I respectfully disagree. The verse cites an authoritative rule of faith; namely the Scriptures. Neither this verse, nor the rest of the Bible cites cite any other rule of faith. Absent living apostles, and absent a demonstration of some other rule of faith this verse is sufficient to establish Sola Scriptura.

Your Cuba Libre analogy is well chosen to produce the desired result. All you have to do is find a recipe that requires several ingredients, and presto, you analogize a meaning in the verse that assumes multiple rules of faith. I now notice that with limes, you had to change the singular, "is" to the plural, "are" to get the result you wanted, so I hereby retract my statement about the grammar being the same. The verse, however, has only one "ingredient"; namely "Scripture".

Cordially,

[phatus maximus]

Respectfully, what exists in Tradition that does not exist in Scripture in terms of what is necessary for salvation?