And it's not even biblical. Not that it would matter if it was, since the argument would be circular. For instance, I could write a book containing the sentence, "This book represents the word of God, whole and entire," but the sentence alone wouldn't prove the inspiration of my writings.
But at the very least the doctrine of "The Bible alone" should be found in Scripture, but it's not. Sure, the Bible upholds the value of Scripture, but never Scripture alone.
Was the in-person inspired teaching by the apostles authoritative in the first century? Sure. But how can we know whether any supposed 'oral tradition' originated with them? One way would be comparing those alleged traditions with the Scripture we DO have. So, if someone espouses a doctrine that they claim to have these divinely preserved down through the ~60 generations since the apostles, but that doctrine contradicts the written record we do have, then they are making a false claim.
For example, if the person or organization is truly conveying the 1st Century oral teachings about the structure of the church, they will be in complete agreement with Paul's requirements in I Timothy 3:2,4 and Titus 1:6 that a bishop be married with children. Anyone who teaches the opposite is, obviously, not really getting their doctrines from the same Source that Paul did.
What point is trying to be made here?
From Moses through John, if it was important for people to remember, and for future generations to know, then it was written down for a permanent record. The Romans and the subsequent Roman Catholic Church observes nothing as authoritative unless it is written down. Thus to argue against the scriptures from which it claims authority is truly hypocritical.
And when you talk of "Tradition", what makes you think that the real Judeo-Christian Tradition did not pass through the Waldensians and all those churches that had a tradition of valuing the Scriptures above the oral teachings and pontifications of even those mere mortal men who served as their pastors.
You say that Sola Scriptura is not in Scripture, but what makes you think that it is not the foundation of Tradition of all the true churches. Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, all the early church fathers cited Scripture as the source of authority for the things they wrote about --- not hearsay, rumor, oral traditions. They cited the hard facts of Scripture.
The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is testified to not only by Scripture itself, but also by that Tradition that you laud so much --- the tradition of the written word over the spoken word, which your post is evidence of. If you think that the oral word is so valuable, then why didn't you deliver this rant of yours orally. Why did you bother to put it in written form?
Note the use of the word "apostolic"; meaning what was established by the original apostles (as described in scripture) not whatever church leaders of the future might initiate on their own whims or misreading of scripture. Paul wasn't offering a blank check.
My challenge to the anti-sola scriptura writers is to provide any scriptural support the notion of authoritative tradition as evolving. Of course, I realize that your self-reinforcing position doesn't recognize any burden to do so.
You protest too much.. that makes you a protestant..
I just don't understand why a Catholic who posts a thread like this gets banned and a protestant who posts a thread like this gets to stay and pntificate??
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1773583/posts
I'm a protestant who's not 100% sold on Sola Scriptura, but a whole host of these things are making bad assumptions and are flatly false.
NO protestant I know thinks that the Bible is the ONLY way to teach about God, or the ONLY things that can be known about God, they just think that it's the only thing we can know for sure, and the only thing that is truly important, or else God would have let us know through scripture. A whole host of these arguments seem to assume the opposite.