I think most admit that is what they do. I am sure that there are people out there who really try to read both points of view thoroughly. On some subjects, I really try to. But it is a lot of work, and sometimes, I will rely on someone else - or I sometimes get lazy and grasp a sentence that I see "proves" my point. Honestly, I don't think people come here for a dissertation on a particular subject, so that is the nature of the beast on these threads, I suppose. I have posted long works that I put a lot of time into. For example, I spent over a week researching the early use of the NT Deuterocanonicals by the Church Fathers. After I posted that extensive research, it was pretty much brushed aside by my opponent.
Ah well...Some people really are not interested in objective truth, but expressing their own opinions.
On the other hand many of the arguments of Augustine, among other "Church Fathers" for instance would lead one to believe he would be accused of being a "Sola Scripture" proponent by a reasonable definition of Sola Scriptura rather than one concocted by those who wish to attack the idea.
I don't really want to go too much in that direction, because then we will be arguing that subject, as well! However, I do have some experience on this subject and what the Fathers write. There are several websites that I have links to that quote many different paragraphs of Fathers that supposedly believe in Sola Scriptura - and these paragraphs are a contradiction to that idea. If we take the Father's writing in context, we find that they believe Scripture is a critical, inspired work from which they draw their theology. And these same Fathers also express what Catholics would call apostolic tradition and holding to the rule of faith expressed by the Church (as opposed to their own personal opinions).
It is my personal opinion that one should look at what the Fathers write in a general way, rather than latching onto one or two sentences. Basil, for example, was adamant about Church Tradition WHILE appearing to hold Scriptures supreme - perhaps a Protestant could see "sola scriptura" there, but only if he looked at one or two sentences and ignore the rest. But when you put the two writings together, I think you'd come up with a different idea that is more in line with what the Catholic Church teaches today.
Of course, that is my opinion! I certainly have not read everything that Basil has written, just pieces here and there, but probably much more than the average Catholic or Protestant.
I have read much, far from all, of the works of Augustine and cannot find a single instance where he says "Tradition", The Church", or anything else trumps Scripture. Can you?
Reggie, the Catholic Church doesn't teach that, either.
The Catechism states that Apostolic Tradition and Scriptures come from the same source, God. Neither "trumps" the other, although I would say that Scriptures holds a higher place in the Church. The Protestant principle that began with the Reformation was a needed correction. However, it went too far in refuting the Church's authority to infallibly define what the Scriptures mean by its various phrases. An infallible book is meaningless if no one can agree what it means. Thus, the positive Protestant principle turned into a negative that actually removed part of what the Scriptures had previously upheld.
We have hope that some day, people will realize this and return home.
Regards